Citations

Introduction Orally administered tacrolimus is widely used in hematopoietic cell transplant patients, but multiple clinical situations may arise rendering oral administration infeasible. The undesirable sequelae of intravenous administration, including toxicity, challenges with administration and cost call for innovative solutions to conserve existing supply and optimize safety and efficacy of medication delivery. We sought to demonstrate feasibility of sublingual tacrolimus use and estimate a sublingual-to-oral (SL:PO) conversion ratio in the hematopoietic cell transplant setting. Methods Ten adults undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant received tacrolimus 0.04 mg/kg/dose twice daily. Initial doses were given via sublingual route and a steady state trough level was collected after 4 consecutive doses. Participants were then switched to oral tacrolimus, the dose adjusted for a goal trough 8-12ng/mL, and another steady state trough was drawn. Total daily dose was divided by trough concentration for each route to determine the dosing ratio of SL:PO. Results Median trough level following sublingual administration was 11.3 ng/mL. Three of these were within goal, 3 were low (4.7–6.4 ng/mL) and 4 were elevated (15.9–18.6 ng/mL). Median SL:PO ratio was 1.02. In 5 participants the SL:PO ratio was <1 (range 0.57–0.94) and in 5 the ratio was ≥1 (range 1.10–1.92). No significant barriers or intolerance to sublingual tacrolimus use were noted. Conclusions Results demonstrate reliable absorption with sublingual tacrolimus use in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant. Sublingual administration may allow for avoidance of the undesirable complications of IV tacrolimus, such as increased toxicities, required hospitalization for continuous infusion, risk of dose conversion and dilution errors and increased cost. Trial Registry name: Use of Sublingual Tacrolimus in Adult Blood and Marrow Transplant Patients, NCT04041219 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04041219?term=NCT04041219&draw=2&rank=1

Abstract Objective. —To review the current status of resistance to imatinib mesylate (IM) in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia, and the obstacles and opportunities presented by the development of this resistance. Data Sources and Study Selection. —Review of selected studies obtained from a MEDLINE search encompassing the years 1950 to 2004. Data Extraction and Data Synthesis. —Relevant information from the selected studies was abstracted and summarized. Conclusions. —The identification of the Philadelphia chromosome and the subsequent discovery that it represents a translocation between the long arms of chromosomes 9 and 22 producing an aberrant tyrosine kinase, known as BCR-ABL1, has catalyzed our understanding and treatment of this hematologic malignancy. An extensive search for molecules to block the aberrant BCR-ABL1 protein resulted in the development of IM as an orally bioavailable agent with remarkable efficacy in producing hematologic, cytogenetic, and molecular remissions. However, follow-up of patients treated with IM has demonstrated that some patients can develop resistance to IM with progression of their leukemia. Multiple mechanisms of resistance have been identified. The dominant mechanism appears to be mutations in the kinase domain of BCR-ABL1, which result in altered affinity of IM for the BCR-ABL1 protein. Recently, small-molecule, combined SRC and ABL1 inhibitors have been developed and entered into clinical trials. These inhibitors appear effective in inhibiting most of the mutant BCR-ABL1 molecules that are resistant to IM. The rapid development of new therapies for treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia brings the promise that this disorder can be cured or controlled in many patients with oral drugs that have a low toxicity profile.

Background: Elevated serum ferritin (SF) is common in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) given the frequent red-cell transfusion requirements and impaired iron metabolism. The dysregulation of iron metabolism is associated with increased hepcidin levels which predict for inferior survival in patients with MF (Pardanani et al AJH 2013). High pre-transplant SF negatively impacts overall survival and non-relapse mortality in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for hematological malignancies (Chee et al BMT 2017 & Yan et al 2018). However, the impact of elevated pre-transplant SF specifically on post-alloHCT outcomes has not been described in MF. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with MF undergoing allo-HCT at Mayo clinic Rochester, Arizona, and Florida from January 1st 2012 - December 31st 2019. We abstracted demographic and outcome variables to evaluate the impact of pre-transplant ferritin levels on post-transplant outcomes. We used a Receiver Operand Characteristic Curve to identify a pre-transplant serum ferritin (SF) of ≥ 1,123 ng/mL as the cutoff which best correlated with poor survival. Results: We identified 67 patients with MF who underwent allo-HCT during the study period with readily available data. Patients with a pre-transplant ferritin ≥ 1,123 ng/mL (n=18) had a median age of 59.4 years and were predominantly male (n=9, 50%) with primary myelofibrosis (n=12, 67%), had a DIPSS-plus int-2 (n=10, 56%) and high (n=6, 33%) risk categories and received a reduced-intensity conditioning (n=14, 78%) from a matched-unrelated donor (n=7, 50%) Table1. Patients with SF ≥ 1,123 ng/mL had a worse overall survival (OS) (median OS= 12.64 months [95%CI=6.08-19.20 months] vs. not-reached (NR) p=0.001). Patients with elevated SF had an increased non-relapse mortality (NRM) rate at 6 months (16.7%, [95%CI=0.4-37.2%]) vs 8.2%,[95%CI= 2.6-18.1%] p=0.021) and 12 months (33.3% [95%CI=13.0-55.4%] vs 10.4% [95%CI=3.8-21.0%] p=0.021) Patients with ≥ 1,123 ng/mL SF had a non-statistically significant higher rate of acute graft-vs-host disease grades 3-4 (28% vs 12.2% p=0.13) but similar rates of moderate to severe chronic graft-vs-host disease (31% vs 28% p=0.78). In the univariate analysis, SF ≥1,123 ng/mL and a Hematopoietic stem cell transplant comorbidity index (HCT-CI) ≥3 were associated with an increased risk of mortality (Hazard ratio [HR]=4.18 [95%CI=1.64-10.62] p=0.003] and HR=4.42 [95%CI=1.70-11.46] p=0.003, respectively). Both retained significance in multivariate analysis SF ≥1,123 ng/mL (HR= 2.80 [95%CI= 1.0-7.6], p=0.04)] and HCT-CI score ≥ 3 (HR 3.10 [95%CI= 1.12-8.62, p=0.03]) after adjusting for age, DIPSS-plus score, conditioning regimen intensity, donor type, CMV risk, prior use of ruxolitinib, and ABO mismatch. We grouped the patients into low, intermediate and high risk categories using SF level and HCT-CI scores as detailed in Figure 1. The risk category based on SF and HCT-CI was statistically significant in impacting OS and NRM in this cohort. The 12 month OS rate was lower in the high risk category (44.4% [95%CI= 13.6%-71.9%]) when compared to the intermediate (64.6%, [95%CI=39.7%-81.3%]) and low risk (91.9%, [95%CI= 76.9%-97.3%], p=0.0002) categories. Similarly, the 12 month NRM rate was higher in the high risk category (44.4%, [95%CI=11.0%-74.2%]) when compared to the intermediate (25%, [95%CI=8.7%-45.5%]) and low risk (5.3% [95%CI=0.9%-15.9%], p=0.0046) categories. Conclusion: In patients undergoing allogeneic SCT for myelofibrosis, serum ferritin ≥ 1,123 ng/mL is a predictor of high NRM and inferior OS. Combining ferritin serum levels with HCT-CI may help in better patient selection for allo-HCT in MF population. Larger patient cohort is warranted to confirm our findings. Disclosures Kharfan-Dabaja: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Shah:Dren Bio: Consultancy.

Introduction: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are often treated with intensive induction chemotherapy to achieve complete remission (CR). Early response to standard anthracycline plus cytarabine induction (7+3) is assessed by a day 14 nadir bone marrow biopsy. The nadir marrow has limitations, though, including sampling issues and ambiguity as to whether blasts are leukemia cells vs. regenerating marrow. In prior studies, the predictive value for remission of the nadir marrow is only 67-84%. A more accurate predictor of residual disease (RD) would give clinicians an opportunity to modify therapy earlier. Positron emission tomography (PET/CT) with 3'-deoxy-3'-[18F]fluorothymidine (FLT) is a molecular imaging modality that can assess cellular proliferation in the bone marrow compartment. A prior single-institution pilot study showed a significant difference in the marrow FLT uptake between patients with AML who achieved CR and those who had RD after count recovery. Methods: EAI141 was an ECOG-ACRIN-led, prospective, multi-center study designed to assess FLT PET/CT as a predictor of CR after AML induction. The primary objective was to evaluate the predictive value of post-treatment FLT PET/CT imaging for detecting RD, with the secondary objectives of evaluating the predictive value for detecting CR and estimating the sensitivity and specificity. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of &gt; 7 g/mL in total bone marrow compartment was chosen prospectively based on data from a pilot study as a marker for presence of leukemia cells at nadir. The predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity of the FLT PET/CT and the nadir bone marrow biopsy were calculated. Eligible subjects were 18 years or older with previously untreated AML who were to receive induction with 7+3. Subjects underwent a nadir marrow biopsy and an FLT PET/CT scan 10-17 days after starting induction, and prior to any re-induction if disease was noted on the nadir marrow. A recovery marrow was performed 28-35 days after initial treatment or re-induction to assess CR or RD. Subjects could undergo an optional pre-treatment scan. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were additional clinical outcomes. Results: 87 subjects from 9 centers were enrolled between 2016-2018, and 61 were considered evaluable. Reasons for being not evaluable included study ineligibility (n=3), no post-treatment scan (n=13), and no remission marrow (n=10). Median age was 58 years (range 21-73); 56% were men and 44% were women. CR was achieved in 56% (34/61). Treatment was a single induction course in 79% (48/61) and re-induction in 21% (13/61). Predictive value based on FLT PET/CT was 60% (9/15, 95% CI 32%-84%) for RD and 61% (28/46, 95% CI 45%-75%) for CR. Of patients who achieved CR, 28/34 had SUVmax ≤ 7 g/mL (sensitivity of 82%) and 9/27 of those who did not had high SUVmax &gt; 7 g/mL (specificity 33%). Predictive value of an aplastic marrow was 59% (26/44) for CR and 56% (9/16) for RD. Of patients who achieved CR, 26/33 had marrow hypoplasia (sensitivity 79%) and 9/27 with RD had disease in the nadir marrow (specificity 33%). Significant heterogeneity of bone marrow compartment post treatment (SUVhetero ranging from 0.24 to 1.07) was observed in FLT-PET/CT scans. Heterogeneity of bone marrow compartment decreased about 50% from pre-treatment to post-treatment FLT PET/CT. OS for all participants, stratified by post-treatment FLT PET/CT response and nadir marrow results, are summarized in the Figure. Conclusions: Although this study did not show significant advantage of FLT PET/CT compared to nadir marrow to predict RD or CR on the average, it did show signal heterogeneity in the study population that may be relevant to disease biology not appreciated by a single sampling site for the nadir or remission marrow. For example, in patients with false negative nadir biopsy, in approximately 20% of patients assessment with FLT PET/CT was correct, likely reflecting bone marrow heterogeneity and limitation of a single point sampling. Similarly, in almost 60% of patients with false positive nadir biopsy, FLT PET/CT assessment was correct. Figure 1 Disclosures Jeraj: AIQ Solutions: Current equity holder in private company. Kostakoglu:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy. Strickland:KiTE: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Sunesis: Research Funding; ArcherDx: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Uy:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Honoraria. Perlman:GE Healthcare: Research Funding; AIQ: Research Funding.

Background: Clonal cytopenias of Undetermined Significance (CCUS) have a higher risk of progression to myeloid neoplasm (MN) compared to idiopathic cytopenias of undetermined significance (ICUS) (Malcovati et al., Blood, 2017). The implementation of flow cytometric (FC) immune-phenotyping and next generation sequencing (NGS) in clinical practice has improved the diagnosis of these entities but the clinical significance and interaction of these abnormal results are still unknown. In this study we investigated predictive factors that play role in survival and progression to MN in patients with ICUS/CCUS. Methods: Patients (Pts) who had undergone evaluation for unexplained cytopenia and had undergone FC and bone marrow morphological assessment between 3/2015-3/2020 at Mayo Clinic Rochester were included. Pts were excluded if a malignant hematological disorder was diagnosed prior to the time of FC. FC included evaluation of the following parameters: Abnormal expression of HLA-DR/CD13, CD2, CD7, CD45, and CD56 on blasts; and abnormal CD13/CD16 expression and side scatter on granulocytic cells. NGS panel up to 2018 included 34 genes, ASXL1, BCOR, BRAF, CALR, CBL, CEBPA, CSF3R, DNMT3A, ETV6, EZH2, FLT3, GATA1, GATA2, IDH1, IDH2, JAK2, KIT, KRAS, MPL, MYD88, NOTCH1, NPM1, NRAS, PHF6, PTPN11, RUNX1, SETBP1, SF3B1, TERT, TET2, TP53, U2AF1, WT1, and ZRSR2; in 2018, BRAF was omitted and 12 genes were added, ANRD26, DDX41, ELANE, ETNK1, KDM6A, MYD88, NOTCH1, RAD21, SH2B3, SRP72, SMC3, and STAG2. Results: Characteristics: Of 490 consecutive pts, 238 (median age 69 years (range 19-92), 66% males) met our inclusion criteria as ICUS. 86 (36%) pts had CCUS (abnormal cytogenetics and/or tested positive for pathogenic mutations on NGS). After a median follow-up of 28 months (95% CI: 20 to 31 months), 21 (25%) patients developed MN and 23 (27%) died during follow-up. Comparing ICUS vs CCUS: upon comparing CCUS pts to ICUS, several factors were found to be significantly different: CCUS pts were older (p= .02); majority male (p= .04), had more abnormal HLA-DR/CD13 (p &lt;.0001), more side-scattered light by FC (p &lt;.0001), more pancytopenia on follow up (p= .02) and more morphologic atypia (&lt;.0001). Overall survival (OS) outcomes in CCUS: Several covariates were significant in univariate models, and model selection was used to generate a risk score based on abnormal CD7, abnormal CD13/CD16, abnormal HLA-DR/CD13, splenomegaly and history of prior chemotherapy or radiotherapy (range: 0 - 4; HR=2.58, [95 CI: 1.69 - 3.94], p&lt;.0001). Risk scores were grouped as low risk (score=0), intermediate risk (score=1), and high risk (score=2+), with estimated 2-yr-OS of 95%, 84%, 40%, respectively (Figure 1). An extended risk score model including NGS factors added ASXL1 and IDH1 mutation status to the previous model (range: 0 - 6; HR=2.72, [95 CI 1.82 - 4.06], p&lt;0.0001). MN-free survival (MNFS) in CCUS: 37 pts either progressed to MN and/or died with a median follow up time for MNFS of 22.4 months. Similar for OS, model selection approaches yielded a composite risk score: splenomegaly, BCOR mutation status, mutation in RAS signaling pathway, abnormal expression of flow markers CD13/CD16, HLA-DR/CD13 or CD7 (HR=3.23, [95 CI: 1.90 - 5.49], p=&lt;0.0001). Risk scores were grouped as low risk (score=0), intermediate risk (score=1), and high risk (score ≥ 2), with estimated 1-yr MNFS of 84%, 74%, and 31%, respectively (Figure 2). Conclusion: CCUS has unique features compared to ICUS. Several factors, including clinical characteristics, immune-phenotyping by FC, and somatic mutations have important impact on risk of progression to MN and on overall survival. Our findings serve as proof-of-concept that such integrated models could help identify CCUS patients at higher risks for progression to MN or death. They can guide treatment accordingly and should be evaluated further. Disclosures Shah: Dren Bio: Consultancy.

Background: ENA is an oral, selective inhibitor of IDH2 approved for the treatment (Tx) of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory IDH2 mutated (IDH2m) AML. Here we report the results of a Phase 2 expansion and Phase 1b of the Beat AML Master Trial Phase 2/1b sub-study to assess the efficacy of Tx of newly diagnosed (ND) IDH2m AML pts ≥ 60 years of age with ENA monotherapy (ENAm) and subsequent response-driven addition of AZA Tx. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03013998). Methods: The study initiated with a 3-outcome, 2-stage Phase 2 design, which enrolled patients on ENAm for up to 5 cycles. Pts without CR/CRi after 5 cycles of ENAm, or progression/intolerance prior to this time, were transferred to Phase 1b to receive ENA + AZA (Figure 1). Key eligibility included ND IDH2m AML pts with age ≥ 60 years and ECOG performance status 0-2. Pts received ENAm 100 mg/day in continuous 28-day cycles and ENA + AZA (75 mg/m2 days 1-7 every 28 days) for Phase 1b. Response was assessed using 2017 ELN AML criteria. The primary endpoint was CR/CRi rate. The 2-stage design required 24 pts and tested the null hypothesis (H0) that CR/CRi rate equaled 20% vs 50% and then expanded to test a revised H0 of 30% vs 50% in 60 pts (conditional alpha=0.025, power=77%). Expansion also allowed further assessment of safety of this treatment regimen. Results: At data cut off (06/18/2020), 60 pts enrolled, received ENAm, and were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Median age was 75 years and 52% were female (Table 1). Median time on ENAm was 4.7 months (mos). At data cut off, 12 pts were still on ENAm Tx. Most common reasons for discontinuing ENAm were Tx failure (defined as no response to treatment) (23 or 38%), disease progression (loss of response to treatment) (7 or 12%) and adverse events (AEs; 6 or 10%). Five pts (8%) went to transplant. CR/CRi was achieved in 28 pts (47%; adjusted 95% CI 28-59, unadjusted exact 95% CI 34-60) (Table 2). Responses were higher (p=0.04) among the 44 pts with IDH2 R140 (55%) as compared to the 16 with IDH2 R172 mutation (25%) further supporting distinct biology between these subsets. After a median follow up of 14.6 mos, the median overall survival (mOS) was 24.4 mos (95% CI 10.6-not reached). The median duration of response was not reached with 12 mos estimation of 57% (95% CI 34-75). Overall, 20 ENA-related serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 15 pts, the most common was differentiation syndrome (12 or 20%) and 1 had ENA-related SAE of tumor lysis syndrome (1.7%). One pt had ENA-related Grade 5 AE (renal failure/death). Most common AEs of any grade (in ≥20%) were nausea, anemia, and low potassium (Table 3). The 7-day/30-day/60-day deaths observed with ENAm were 2%/5%/11%, respectively. Phase 1b: Seventeen pts had inadequate response to ENAm and transferred to Phase 1b to receive ENA + AZA. Median time on Tx (including ENAm) was 6.2 mos and median time on Tx after pts started ENA + AZA was 2.1 mos (Table 2). Most common reasons for discontinuing ENA + AZA included Tx failure (5 or 29%), disease progression (2 or 12%), transplant, death and AEs (each 2 or 12%). CR/CRi was 41% (exact 95% CI 18-67). After a median follow up of 12.7 mos, the mOS from start of ENA + AZA combination Tx was 8.9 mos. Four ENA-related SAEs occurred in 3 pts on ENA + AZA Tx and the most common was differentiation syndrome (2 or 12.5%). One dose-limiting toxicity (Grade 3 nausea) related to both Txs was observed. Most common AEs (≥20%) of any grade were anemia, low albumin and vomiting (Table 3). One death occurred at day 13 of ENA + AZA. Conclusions: In newly diagnosed pts ≥60 years old with IDH2m AML, ENA had a low early death rate, high CR/CRi rate (47%, adjusted 95% CI 28-59), and yielded durable remissions. The most common unique toxicity with ENA was differentiation syndrome that occurred in 20% of patients. In pts who did not achieve CR/CRi with ENAm, a subset of patients achieved CR/CRi with addition of AZA. This combined approach of serial therapy with ENA monotherapy followed by AZA addition in pts with sub-optimal response resulted in a mOS exceeding 2 years for pts enrolled on study. Further focus on improving response among patients with IDH2 R172 mutations, identifying subsets of pts not responding to ENA monotherapy, and integrating new targeted agents into this treatment regimen are warranted. Figure 1 Disclosures Stein: Syndax: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; Biotheryx: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy. Borate:Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Investigator in AbbVie-funded clinical trials; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Baer:Takeda: Other: Institutional research funding; AbbVie: Other: Institutional research funding; Astellas: Other: Institutional research funding; Forma: Other: Institutional research funding; Kite: Other: Institutional research funding; Oscotec: Other: Institutional research funding; Incyte: Other: Institutional research funding. Kovacsovics:Agios: Honoraria; Astella: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria. Schiller:Astellas Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Stemline: Speakers Bureau; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Deciphera: Research Funding; DeltaFly: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Gamida: Research Funding; Genentech-Roche: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Mateon: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Regimmune: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Trovagene: Research Funding; Kaiser Permanente: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ono Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Olin:Astellas: Other: Site PI; Genentech: Other: Site PI; Pfizer: Other: Site PI; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: Site PI; Genentech: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Foran:Trillium: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lin:Trovagene: Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Prescient Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bio-Path Holdings: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Aptevo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Mateon Therapeutics: Research Funding; Ono Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Genetech-Roche: Research Funding; Celyad: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Patel:DAVA Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy; France Foundation: Honoraria. Foster:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Druker:Leukemia & Lymphoma Society: Research Funding; Henry Stewart Talks: Patents & Royalties; Iterion Therapeutics (formerly Beta Cat Pharmaceuticals): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vivid Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GRAIL: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Patient True Talks: Consultancy; The RUNX1 Research Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Third Coast Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; VB Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millipore (formerly Upstate Biotechnology): Patents & Royalties; MolecularMD (acquired by ICON): Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; McGraw Hill: Patents & Royalties; Merck & Co: Patents & Royalties; Cepheid: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute: Patents & Royalties; EnLiven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Therapeutics Inc. (formerly Lorus): Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ARIAD: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ALLCRON: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Aileron Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oregon Health & Science University: Patents & Royalties. Byrd:Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; Vincera: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Janssen, Novartis, Gilead, TG Therapeutics: Other; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Gilead, TG Therapeutics, Novartis, Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Gilead, TG Therapeutics, BeiGene: Research Funding. Levine:Loxo: 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; Imago: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Qiagen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Isoplexis: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria. Mims:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other: Senior Medical Director for Beat AML Study; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Syndax Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Enasidenib is not approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML.

Background Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) has a median age at diagnosis of 67 years. The only curative therapy remains an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT), yet it is complicated by non-relapse mortality (NRM) and ongoing morbidity including graft versus host disease (GVHD) that may impact survival, particularly in older patients. We examined the outcomes and predictors of success in a large cohort of patients aged 60 years and older receiving a HCT for AML in first complete remission (CR1). Methods HCT recipients 60 years or older with AML in CR1 reported to the CIBMTR were included. Cox models were used to compare rates of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, acute GHVD, chronic GVHD in 3 separate age groups: 60-64 years vs. 65-70 years vs. 70+ years (Figure 1A). Results 1,327 patients undergoing HCT from 2007-2017 were included. The three age cohorts (60-64; 65-69; 70+) were comparable in demographic and disease characteristics, except the older cohort had more males, more de novo AML, and a higher incidence of measurable residual disease (MRD) pre-HCT. Fewer had sibling donors and more were performed in recent years. With median follow-up of nearly 3 years, patients aged 60-64 had significantly better OS, DFS and lower NRM than those aged 65-69 and 70+. Those aged 65-69 and 70+ had similar outcomes (Figure 1). Three-year OS for the 3 cohorts was 49.4%, 42.3%, and 44.7% respectively (p=0.026). NRM was higher with increasing age, cord blood as graft source and HCT-CI score of ≥ 3. Conditioning intensity was not a significant predictor of outcomes with HR for OS for 60-69 cohort of 0.46 for RIC and 0.49 for MAC (p=0.38). There was no difference in the relapse rate, incidence of G3/4 acute GVHD, or incidence of moderate-severe chronic GVHD across the age cohorts. Poor risk cytogenetics, presence of MRD prior to HCT, cord blood as graft source, and transplant prior to 2016 were significant predictors of poor OS. Discussion In this large retrospective series of HCT for AML in CR1, age had a small effect OS and NRM after accounting for other predictors. High-risk features such as poor cytogenetics and presence of MRD prior to HCT were significantly associated with relapse and accounted for most of the adverse impact on OS and DFS. Age did not influence the incidence of either acute or chronic GVHD; graft type and associated GVHD prophylaxis were most important. These data suggest that age alone is not a barrier to successful HCT for AML in CR1 and should not exclude patients from HCT. Efforts should focus on minimizing residual disease and better donor selection. Table Disclosures Kebriaei: Ziopharm: Other: Research Support; Novartis: Other: Served on advisory board; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Other: Research Support; Kite: Other: Served on advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Served on advisory board. Weisdorf:FATE Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding.

Abstract Objectives SF3B1 mutations are the most common mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). The International Working Group for the Prognosis of MDS (IWG-PM) recently proposed SF3B1-mutant MDS (SF3B1-mut-MDS) as a distinct disease subtype. We evaluated the spectrum and molecular landscape of SF3B1-mutated myeloid disorders and assessed the prognostication in MDS harboring SF3B1 mutations (MDS-SF3B1). Methods Cases were selected by retrospective review. Clinical course and laboratory and clinical findings were collected by chart review. SF3B1-mut-MDS was classified following IWG-PM criteria. Results SF3B1 mutations were identified in 75 of 955 patients, encompassing a full spectrum of myeloid disorders. In MDS-SF3B1, Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) score greater than 3 and transcription factor (TF) comutations were adverse prognostic markers by both univariate and multivariate analyses. We confirmed the favorable outcome of IWG-PM-defined SF3B1-mut-MDS. Interestingly, it did not show sharp prognostic differentiation within MDS-SF3B1. Conclusions SF3B1 mutations occur in the full spectrum of myeloid disorders. We independently validated the favorable prognostication of IWG-PM-defined SF3B1-mut-MDS. However it may not provide sharp prognostication within MDS-SF3B1 where IPSS-R and TF comutations were prognostic-informative. Larger cohort studies are warranted to verify these findings and refine MDS-SF3B1 prognostication.

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 ).