Citations

Abstract Background: International Working Group (IWG) has set criteria in 2003 for response assessment in patients with AML; at which time intensive chemotherapy was the main therapy (Cheson, JCO 2003). Hypomethylating agents (HMA) were approved shortly after for the treatment of elderly AML (Fenaux, JCO 2009; Dombret et al Blood 2015). Although few patients achieve a deep response, the majority will have stable disease (SD), some of which could last several months while patients continue to receive HMA and gain clinical benefit. We hereby describe outcomes for patients who achieve SD with HMA for the treatment of elderly unfit AML patients. Methods: A total of 56 AML patients' data from Feb 2007 to June 2015 at Mayo Clinic were reviewed after appropriate IRB approval was obtained. All cases had their bone marrow slides reviewed at our institution. Patients were considered for our study if they received HMA as frontline therapy for their AML. Patients who received HMAs after induction chemotherapy failure or for their MDS were excluded. Response was identified based on 2003 IWG AML response criteria. Patients with SD were categorized into short-lasting (<6 cycles of HMA, cohort 1) or long-lasting (≥6 cycles of HMA, cohort 2) SD.Prognostic factors were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Survival estimates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves and univariate and multivariate analyses was based on log-rank testing using JMP software version 10. Results: i) Characteristics: Fifty six AML patients were treated with HMA as frontline therapy with median age of 76 years (range, 59-91), 68% of which were males. Therapy related AML (T-AML) was seen in 2% of the cases. Cytogenetics were favorable risk in 2%, intermediate in 62%, and poor in 36%. Complete remission (CR) was found in 10 (18%) patients, CR with incomplete count recovery in 3 (5%), partial remission (PR) in 3 (5%) patients. Forty patients were non-responders (SD). ii) Characteristics of HMA SD cohorts: Upon comparison of cohort 1 versus cohort 2 there was no statistical significance in median age, white blood count, absolute neutrophil count, platelets, peripheral blood and bone marrow blasts, bone marrow cellularity and sex. Median number of cycles was expectedly higher in cohort 2 vs 1 (9 vs 2, p<0.0001). Intermediate cytogenetic risk was more common in cohort 2 vs 1 (90% vs 43%, p=0.006), while poor risk was more common in cohort 1 vs 2 (57% vs 10%, p=0.006). Only 10% had complex karyotype in cohort 2 compared to 50% in cohort 1 (p=0.017). NPM1 mutation was absent in all cases, while FLT3 mutation was present 30% in cohort 1 and 25% in cohort 2 (p = 0.9). Decitabine was more commonly given in cohort 1 vs cohort 2 (80% vs 50%, p =0.07). iii) Clinical outcome of HMA SD cohorts : Median overall survival was higher in long-lasting SD patients (cohort 2) vs short-lasting SD (18 vs 4 months, p = 0.0002). Upon multivariate analysis, both age (p <0.0001) and long-lasting SD (p =0.01) were statistically significant for overall survival but not cytogenetics risk grouping nor type of HMA administered. Conclusions: Standard response criteria for AML by IWG were developed for intensive chemotherapy and do not apply to newer agents, specifically HMA. Stable disease (SD) could be meaningful to some elderly AML patients when treated with HMA. Intermediate cytogenetics and azacitidine use were more frequent in patients with long-lasting SD. Long-lasting SD did confer a survival benefit in elderly AML patients. Newer response criteria for assessing novel agents' efficacy are needed in this population. Figure Figure. Disclosures Tibes: Italfarmaco S.p.A.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Foran:pfizer: Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; medscape: Honoraria; karyopharm: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; agios: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: AML outcome in elderly patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy continues to be challenging. Hypomethylating agents (HMA) can be effective in these patients but responses are short-lived (Fenaux et al, JCO 2009; Dombret et al Blood 2015). Even though HMAs achieve superior response rates to supportive care alone, complete remissions (CR) are rarely achieved and often quickly lost when they occur. The majority of patients will either have stable disease or progress through therapy. We hereby describe the outcome of these patients at our institution after they fail HMAs. Methods: A total of 56 AML patients' data from Feb 2007 to June 2015 at Mayo Clinic were reviewed after appropriate IRB approval was obtained. All cases had their bone marrow slides reviewed at our institution. Patients were considered for our study if they received HMA as frontline therapy for their AML. Patients who received HMAs after induction chemotherapy failure or for their MDS were excluded. Response was identified based on IWG AML criteria (Cheson et al, JCO 2003). Prognostic factors were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Survival estimates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves and univariate and multivariate analyses was based on log-rank testing using JMP software version 10. Results: i) Characteristics at Diagnosis: We identified 56 AML patients treated with HMA as frontline therapy with median age of 76 years (range, 59-91), 68% of which were males. Cases were classified as AML with myelodysplasia related changes in 25%, and therapy related myeloid neoplasm in 2%, and not otherwise specific in 73%. Out of 56 cases, 23% were secondary to MDS, 2% ET (Essential Thrombocytopenia), 5% PV (Polycythemia Vera), 5% MF (Myelofibrosis), 4% from CMML (Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia); while 61% were de novo AML. Per cytogenetics data, 2% were considered favorable risk, 62% intermediate, and 36% poor (34% had complex karyotype). ii) Clinical outcome to Frontline HMA: Out of 56 patients, 15(27%) patients received azacitidine (AZA) and 41 (73%) received decitabine (DAC) with a median number of cycles of 4 (range 1-62). Median number of cycles was higher for AZA vs DAC (8 vs 4, p =0.3). CR was found in 10 (18%), CR with incomplete count recovery in 3 (5%), partial remission (PR) in 3 (5%) patients, with overall response of 28% and median response duration of 10 months (range, 1-78 months). Thirteen (81%) out of 16 responders relapsed. Therefore, only 53 patients were included in primary or secondary failure analysis. iii) Clinical outcome to Frontline HMA failure: Out of 53 patients, 12 (23%) received subsequent treatments. Out of the 12 patients, 3 (25%) received another HMA (switch), 2 (17%) subcutaneous low dose cytarabine, 4 (33%) intensive chemotherapy, while 3 (25%) received either therapy on a clinical trial or targeted therapy. None of the 12 patients who got first salvage therapy achieved remission. Five out of the 12 patients received second salvage therapy, 2 (40%) of which achieved CR. Only one patient had third salvage therapy and did not respond. No patient was able to proceed to allogenic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Median overall survival (mOS) for this group was 2 months. Median OS for patients who received subsequent salvage therapies was better than those who did not receive any subsequent therapy after failing HMA (9.5 vs 2 months, p = 0.0009). Conclusions: Elderly patients diagnosed with AML who are unfit for intensive chemotherapy have a poor prognosis. HMA can get some patients into remission but most patients will ultimately fail. Outcome for patients who have primary or secondary (relapse) failure is very poor with a median OS of 2 months. Switch of HMA did not result in any response. Response to salvage therapy continues to be low but offering salvage therapies seem to improve OS. Our study provides historical data for future novel therapies, which are sorely needed for these patients. Figure Figure. Disclosures Al-Kali: Celgene: Research Funding; Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: In a previously published phase-1/2 study, momelotinib (a JAK 1/2 inhibitor) induced 53% anemia, 39% spleen and >50% constitutional symptoms response rates in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) (Pardanani A, et al. Leukemia. 2013;27:1322). The particular study included 100 patients from the Mayo Clinic who experienced 43% spleen and 44% anemia response rates (Pardanani et al. Leukemia. 2015;29:741); CALR and ASXL1 mutations independently predicted spleen but not anemia response. In the current study, we examined the impact of momelotinib therapy on DIPSS-plus- and molecular risk-adjusted survival. Methods: The current study represents sponsor-independent analysis of long-term survival among 100 consecutive Mayo Clinic patients who received momelotinib therapy as part of a larger (n =166) phase-1/2 study (NCT00935987). Safety and efficacy data from NCT00935987, as well as protocol design and drug dosing and schedule, have already been formally reported and not reiterated here (Pardanani A, et al. Leukemia. 2013;27:1322; Pardanani A, et al. Leukemia. 2015;29:741; Abdelrahman RA, et al. BJH. 2015;169:77). All statistical analyses considered clinical and laboratory parameters obtained at the time of entry to study. Survival analysis was considered from the date of study entry to date of death or last contact. Cox proportional hazard regression model was used for multivariable analysis of survival. Samples from time of study entry were used for mutation screening. Driver mutations were classified into two prognostically-relevant groups: CALR type 1/type 1-like (favorable) vs all others including CALR type 2/type 2-like, JAK2, MPL and triple-negative (unfavorable). Results: 100 patients with MF (median age 66 years; 58% males) were treated at the Mayo Clinic between 11/20/09 and 11/10/10; 64 patients had primary MF, 22 post-polycythemia vera MF and 14 post-essential thrombocythemia MF. Baseline data: DIPSS-plus risk distribution was 63% high, 36% intermediate-2 and 1% intermediate-1 (JCO 2011;29:392); for the purposes of the current analysis, the single patient with intermediate-1 risk disease was included in the intermediate-2 category. 54 (54%) patients displayed abnormal karyotype. 73 (73%) patients harbored JAK2, 16 (16%) CALR, 7 MPL and 4 "triple-negative". Among the 16 CALR -mutated cases, 13 were classified as "type 1/type 1-like". 94 patients were screened for ASXL1 mutations; 41 (44%) were mutated. Follow-up data was updated in July 2015, providing a minimum follow-up of over 4.5 years since the last patient registration on the protocol. At a median follow-up of 3.2 years, 67 (67%) deaths and 13 (13%) leukemic transformations were documented. Median survival from the time of study entry was 3.2 years and was affected by driver mutation prognostic groups (median survival "not reached" for "favorable" vs 3 years for "unfavorable"; p=0.01), ASXL1 mutational status (median survival 3.9 years in unmutated vs 2.5 years in mutated; p=0.02) and DIPSS-plus risk stratification (median survival 2.6 years in high-risk vs 4 years in intermediate-2 risk; p=0.07). In order to assess the impact of momelotinib on long-term outcome, we compared survival of the study cohort (n =100) with that of 442 consecutive Mayo Clinic patients with high or intermediate-2 risk primary MF (median age 67 years; 66% males). There was no significant difference between this control group of PMF patients versus the momelotinib patient cohort in distribution of age (p=0.56), sex (p=0.12), JAK2/CALR/MPL mutational status (p=0.41) or ASXL1 mutational status (p=0.9); however, the momelotinib cohort had a higher fraction of patients with DIPSS-plus high-risk disease (63% vs 47%; p=0.004). Overall survival was similar between the momelotinib cohort and the control group of PMF patients who were not treated with momelotinib (Figure 1; p=0.99); the difference in survival remained not significant during multivariable analysis that included risk stratification by DIPSS-plus (p=0.32), "favorable" vs "unfavorable" driver mutational status (p=0.78) or ASXL1 mutational status (Figure 2; p=0.61). Conclusions: In the current long-term study, we could not demonstrate a survival impact from momelotinib therapy in myelofibrosis. Although adjusted for clinical and molecular risk status, our study is retrospective and cannot be relied upon to discount marginal survival effect. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding. Pardanani:Stemline: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Unlike acute lymphoblastic leukemia, data on acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) in the adolescents and young adults (AYA) are limited and generally derived from clinical trials, which are mostly conducted in academic centers. It is unclear whether the choice of treatment facility influences clinical outcome independent of disease biology and socio-demographic factors. This study used the National Cancer Data Base, a nationwide oncology database covering 70% of the US cancer population, to address this question. Methods: We identified 11,712 AYA patients who were diagnosed with AML from 2003-2011. We excluded patients who were: a) 15-17 years of age (n = 3,104) as treatment facility data were not available for age <18 years; b) not treated at the reporting facilities (n = 415) as follow-up might be incomplete; c) treated at treatment facilities with ≤100 new cancer cases/year (n = 18); and d) those without follow-up data (n = 47). Treatment facilities were classified as academic, comprehensive community (>500 new cancer cases/year), or community (101-500 new cancer cases/year) cancer programs. AMLs harboring t(15;17), inv(16), or t(8;21) were defined as good-risk, while the rest were considered non-good risk. Overall survival from the time of AML diagnosis was the primary outcome. We used multivariate imputation by chained equation to impute missing values, weighted Cox regression to obtain average hazard ratios (HRs), and pooled Wald c2 statistics to detect interaction. Results: We included 8,128 AYA patients with AML in the study and 25.2% were good risk. Among the good risk AMLs, 11.6%, 12.3%, and 76.1% had t(8;21), inv16, and t(15;17), respectively. The distribution of patients by treatment facility were academic (64.1%), comprehensive community (32.9%), and community (3.0%). After detecting an interaction between AML risk and type of treatment facility (P=0.038), we stratified treatment facility by AML risk and found significant differences in overall survival among good risk (P=0.02) but not non-good risk AML (P=0.19). This survival difference persisted even after adjusting for demographic (age, sex, race/ethnicity), socioeconomic (income, education, medical insurance), geographic (area of residence, travel distance), co-morbidities (Charlson-Deyo score), and treatment (receipt of chemotherapy) factors. Patients with good risk AML treated in comprehensive community cancer programs had a higher risk of death compared to those treated in academic programs (adjusted HR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.11-1.79). For community cancer programs, the risk of death was also higher but did not reach statistical significance (adjusted HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.68-2.21). ). Subset analysis showed that the survival difference among those with good risk AML was observed in t(15;17) or acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL; P=0.02) but not in t(8;21) or inv16 (P=0.79). The disparity occurred primarily during the first month of APL diagnosis, wherein the risk of death was two-fold higher in community programs (Figure). Conclusions: Among AYA patients with AML, treatment at academic cancer programs was associated with a better survival, but only for the APL subgroup. Because APL comprises a fifth of all AMLs in the AYA and is a highly curable cancer, health care delivery research in APL should become a priority in this age group. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Al-Kali: Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Over the last decade there have been three FDA-approved agents available for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS); azacitidine was approved in 2004 for all subtypes of MDS; lenalidomide in 2005 for MDS with del(5q); and decitabine in 2006 for intermediate/high risk MDS. However the ability of these drugs to improve survival outside of clinical trials remains controversial (Neukirchen J, Leuk Res 2015, Bernal T, Leukemia 2015). Objectives : i) Evaluate trends in overall survival (OS) and leukemic transformation (LT) rate amongst primary MDS patients (pts) by year of diagnosis and, ii) Evaluate trends in OS by treatment received. Methods : The Mayo Clinic database was used to identify pts with primary MDS in whom bone marrow histologic and cytogenetic information was obtained at the time of diagnosis. WHO criteria were used for MDS diagnosis and LT. A comparative analysis was performed based on year of diagnosis commensurate with the approval of the aforementioned drugs (Group 1- diagnosis prior to the year 2000, Group 2- year 2001-2004, Group 3- year 2005-2009, and Group 4- year 2010-2014). Results : i) Patient characteristics: A total of 1000 pts met the above-stipulated criteria. 85% of pts were above 60 years of age (median 72 years) with 69% being males. The distribution of pts by year of diagnosis was as follows: Group 1 (n=281)(28%), Group 2 (n=250)(25%), Group 3 (n=264)(26%), and Group 4 (n=205 (21%). Median follow-up of our cohort was 27 months (range; 0-300 months) during which time 808 (81%) deaths and 129 (13%) LT were documented. ii) Comparison of patient characteristics by year of diagnosis: Pts in group 1 and 2 compared with groups 3 and 4 were more likely to present with anemia defined as hemoglobin < 10 g/dl (61%/59% vs 50%/55%)(P =.04). In addition, groups 1 and 2 displayed a higher incidence of RA (5%/4% vs 1% each), and RARS (17%/16% vs 9%/8%), compared to groups 3 and 4 that had a higher incidence of RCMD (37%/44% vs 17%/28%) (P <.001). The IPSS-R risk distribution was not significantly different; 17% very low, 36% low, 21% intermediate, 15% high and 11% very high risk with median survivals of 72, 43, 24, 18 and 7 months, respectively (P <.001). As expected, a higher proportion of pts in groups 3 and 4 (41% and 57% respectively) received "disease-modifying" therapy including allogeneic transplant and hypomethylating agents as opposed to only 6% and 22% in groups 1 and 2 respectively (P <.001). iii) Trends in OS and LT rate by year of diagnosis: The median OS of the entire cohort was 30 months, with median OS and LT rates being similar amongst groups 1 through 4 at 31 vs 33 vs 30 vs 27 months (P =.79) (Figure) and 10% vs 16% vs 12% vs 15% (P =.25), respectively. iv) Trends in OS by treatment received: In univariate analysis survival was significantly better in pts who underwent allogeneic transplant (n=65) with median survival of 55 months vs 26 months for non-transplant pts (P<. 001); and among non-transplant lenalidomide-treated pts (n=44) with median survival of 54 months vs 26 months for the remainder of pts (P =.02). However, these results lost significance on multivariable analysis with the addition of age as a co-variate for transplant pts (P =.28), and IPSS-R as a co-variate for lenalidomide treated pts (P =.10). Excluding transplant pts, pts that received hypomethylating agents (n=158) had similar survival to pts not treated with hypomethylating agents (27 vs 29 months; P =.19, age-adjusted P =.11). In addition, the 54 pts who received other chemotherapeutic agents had similar survival to pts not treated with these agents (33 vs 26 months; P =.57, age-adjusted P =.80). Supportive care alone was utilized in 702 pts that had comparable survival to the 298 pts that received "disease-modifying" therapy (27 months vs 34 months; P =.05, age-adjusted P =.11). Conclusions : In this single center analysis of 1000 pts with primary MDS, stratified by year of diagnosis, the poor outcome of these pts has not improved over the last two decades, in spite of the significantly higher utilization of "disease-modifying" therapy, including hypomethylating agents since 2005. The lack of improvement in survival with hypomethylating therapy is consistent with recently published results from the Spanish MDS registry (Bernal T, Leukemia 2015). However, our retrospective study is not designed to detect marginal survival benefit, which has thus far been reported in only one clinical trial. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding. Pardanani:Stemline: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Cytotoxic agents are a well-established risk factor for therapy related myeloid neoplasms (t-MN). The incidence of t-MN in patients (pts) with autoimmune diseases (AID) treated with cytotoxic and immuno-modulatory agents are not well described in the literature. Most case series assess an MDS/AML population and co-occurrence with an AID. To our knowledge, there exists no large case-control studies evaluating a primary AID population that developed therapy-related MDS or AML, and the relationship to detailed therapeutic intervention for AID. Our study queries the association of cytotoxic and immune-modulating agents to treat AID as risk factor for developing MDS or AML. Methods Between 2004-2014, 23,671 pts with an ICD-9 coded AID were seen at Mayo Clinic Arizona; 148 pts from this population had a concomitant coded diagnosis of MDS/AML. In an IRB approved, retrospective chart review we confirmed 61 cases meeting strict inclusion criteria. We performed a case-control match from the same primary AID population for age, gender, and autoimmune specific diagnosis at a 2:1 ratio. AML/MDS cases were compared to controls by use of chi-square test for frequency data. Odds ratios with 95% confidence interval were constructed using conditional logistic regression. Case incidence was compared to SEER data for the general population Results Of 61 cases 33 were MDS, 20 de-novo AML, and 8 MDS transformed to AML. Psoriasis 16 (26.2%) and rheumatoid arthritis 14 (23.0%) were the most common autoimmune diagnoses, followed by systemic lupus 11 (18%), Crohn's disease 7 (11.5%), and ulcerative colitis 5 (8.2%). 39 out of 61 cases (63.9%) received either a cytotoxic or immune modulating agent for AID, compared to 64/122 (52.5%) in the control group; p=0.140. 7/61 cases (11.5%) received both a cytotoxic and immune modulating agent as compared to 16/122 (13.1%) in controls; p=0.753. Overall, the case population received more agents than controls. No cytotoxic or immune-modulating treatment was documented in 16% of cases and 36% controls. Exposures to cytotoxic and immune-modulating agents were similar in both case and control cohorts. Exposure time was not statistically significant. Azathioprine was the only statistically significant agent exposure observed more often in the case cohort than control. Per SEER data, over a 10-year period in a general age-matched population that is comparable to our AID population cohort, we would expect 54 MDS and 35 AML cases. Table 1. Exposures and Timeline Cases (n=61) Controls (n=122) P value * Number of Systemic Agents, Total None 1 2 3 4+ - 10 (16.4%) 26 (42.6%) 12 (19.7%) 7 (11.5%) 6 (9.8%) - 44 (36.1%) 32 (26.2%) 31 (25.4%) 9 (7.4%) 6 (4.9%) 0.020 Exposure to Cytotoxic agent < 1 year 2-5 years 6-10 years 11 years or more Unknown (n=26) 7 (26.9%) 6 (23.1%) 5 (19.2%) 3 (11.5%) 5 (19.2%) (n=43) 5 (11.6%) 8 (18.6%) 6 (13.9%) 12 (27.9%) 12 (27.9%) 0.276 Exposure to Immune modulating agent < 1 year 2-5 years 6-10 years 11 years or more Unknown (n=20) 6 (30%) 6 (30%) 3 (15%) 1 (5%) 4 (20%) (n=37) 6 (16.2%) 10 (27.0%) 5 (13.5%) 3 (8.1%) 13 (35.1%) 0.661 Table 2. Treatments and Odds Ratio Odds Ratio 95% CI for OR P value * Cytotoxic OVERALLAzathioprine Cyclophosphamide Methotrexate Mitoxantrone 6-MP Mycophenolate 1.39 4.16 1.28 0.74 2.73 1.00 1.21 0.72, 2.67 1.29, 13.44 0.24, 6.89 0.29, 1.88 0.23, 33.0 0.23, 4.35 0.28, 5.21 0.322 0.017 0.773 0.528 0.429 0.999 0.803 Immune modulating agent OVERALLAnti-TNF Leflunomide Plaquenil 1.19 0.73 2.00 2.73 0.52, 2.73 0.24, 2.24 0.40, 9.91 0.80, 8.33 0.672 0.585 0.396 0.077 Discussion Treatment of AID does not seem to increase the incidence of MDS or AML. Furthermore, the incidence of myeloid neoplasm occurring in association with treatment of AID is not higher than expected in the general SEER population. However, the case cohort was exposed to more agents overall and more likely to have exposure to azathioprine than controls. Limitations of our study are associated with its retrospective nature, possible associated underrepresentation of t-MN, and autoimmune population profile. Nevertheless, this is the largest case study with detailed drug exposures with timelines for pts with AID, contributing to a better understanding regarding possible risk of developing MDS/AML in pts treated for AID. Confirmation of the same study at Mayo Clinic Rochester and Florida are ongoing. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 5226 Background Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) is a clonal stem cell disorder with overlapping features between myelodysplastic syndromes and myeloproliferative neoplasms. Allogeneic stem-cell transplant (SCT) is considered to be a potentially curative option (Eur J Haematol. 2013; 90:355); with karyotype and comorbidity index (CI) being independent prognostic factors. The role of newer CMML prognostic models remains to be elucidated. We carried out this study to analyze the predictive value of the Mayo model (Leukemia 2013; 27:1504) in assessing transplant outcomes for patients with CMML. Methods After due IRB approval, 25 patients with WHO-defined CMML that underwent allo-SCT at Mayo Clinic from 1992 through 2013 were identified. All patients underwent bone marrow examination and cytogenetic evaluation at diagnosis. Clinical features including status at transplant, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis, donor-recipient HLA-matching, donor-recipient blood types and CMV status were documented. Patients were evaluated for development of GVHD, disease relapse, remission status, and death from all causes. We evaluated the prognostic relevance of clinical and laboratory parameters including those previously identified by the MDAPS (Blood 2002;99:840), Spanish cytogenetic stratification (Haematologica 2011;96:375), and the recently described Mayo model Results Among 25 study patients, 14 (56%) were males and 15 (60%) had WHO defined CMML-1 (6-symptomatic/transfusion dependent, 3-monosomy 7). The median age at transplant was 51 years (range, 18-66 years). Graft sources included: 19 (76%) peripheral blood, 5 (20%) bone marrow, and 1 (4%) double umbilical cord blood. Ten (40%) patients received a reduced intensity conditioning. At last follow up, 15 (60%) deaths were documented while the remainders are alive and disease free. There were six (25%) post-transplant relapses all resulting in mortality. The 5-year OS was 42% and the 5-year non relapse mortality was 35%. Based on the Mayo model, 15 (60%) patients received a high-risk prognostication, 6 (24%) were intermediate and 3 (12%) were low. In an univariate analysis that included: demographics, blood counts at diagnosis and transplant, WHO classification (p=0.19), Spanish karyotypic stratification (p=0.67), prognostication according to the MDAPS (p=0.35) and Mayo model, disease status at transplant, SCT comorbidity index (p=0.06), graft sources, transplant conditioning regimens (p=0.08), development of acute (p=0.64) and chronic GVHD (p=0.06); thrombocytopenia at diagnosis (p=0.04), disease status at transplant (p=0.02), and a high risk prognostication using the Mayo model (p=0.01) were statistically significant. On a multivariable analysis only high risk prognostication by the Mayo model (p=0.02) retained its negative prognostic impact. In an univariate analysis for relapse-free survival, risk stratification by the Spanish cytogenetic system (p=0.04) and the Mayo model were prognostic (p=0.01), with the high risk prognostication by the Mayo model retaining its negative prognostic impact (p=0.01). Conclusions Allogeneic SCT remains a viable treatment option for patients with CMML. The Mayo model serves as a valuable tool, helping with the identification of high risk CMML patients. These patients seem to benefit from allo-SCT in comparison to non-transplant therapeutic options. Given the smaller sample size, validation in a larger patient cohort is needed. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 2926 Background: RAS proteins are encoded by 3 proto-oncogenes (K-RAS, N-RAS, and H-RAS) and regulate the growth and differentiation of many cellular types, including the myeloid compartment. Codons 12, 13, and 61 (in N-RAS and K-RAS) have been reported to be common targets of mutations. These mutations result in constitutive activation of the RAS pathway by increasing intracellular RAS GTP levels, which result in activation of the RAS/MEK and the RAS/PI3K pathways. Its prognostic significance in MDS is yet to be clarified. Because the potential prognostic and therapeutic implications of RAS mutations in MDS, we decided to study the impact of RAS mutations in patients (pts) with MDS. Methods: Mutation analysis of KRAS and NRAS codons 12, 13, and 61 was performed by Pyrosequencing using biotinylated reverse primers. All pts referred to MD Anderson between 2000–2009 were reviewed. In addition to standard clinical characteristics, including karyotyping, mutational status of Flt3, c-Kit and JAK2 was also analyzed. Overall survival was calculated based on Kaplan-Meier. Results: Of the 1067 pts with MDS of age above 17 evaluated for RAS mutation, 43 pts (4%) were positive. Seventy nine percent of RAS mutations were of N-RAS type (codon12 (55%), codon 13 (12%), codon 61(12%)) with K-RAS 12 comprising the rest (21%). Median age was 68 years (range, 18–94) with 66% being males (703 pts). Their median white blood cell (WBC) was 3.3×109/L (range, 0.3–72.2), hemoglobin 9.8 (range, 3–17.5), and platelets 73×109/liter (range, 1–1040). Median bone marrow blast was 5% and 77 pts (7%) had leukemic transformation. More than half of the pts had RAEB or RAEB-t (44% and 9 % respectively) which translated into fewer patients in the low IPSS category (19%). The median age was 66 years (range 26–84) in the RAS mutated (muRAS) group compared to 68 in the wild type (wtRAS). WBC was higher in the muRAS group compared to wtRAS (6.8 ×109/L vs. 3.2 ×109/L, p<0.001 by Mann-Whitney median test (M-W-T)). Percent of bone marrow blasts was higher (9%) in muRAS group compared to 5% in wtRAS (p<0.001 by M-W-T). High (Int-2 and high) risk by IPSS was more frequent in muRAS 51% compared to 40% in wtRAS group (p=0.11). Leukemic transformation was 9% and 7% (p=0.61) in both muRAS and wtRAS groups respectively. RAS mutation was detected more frequently in the CMML subgroup (12/80 (15%) pts). There were no differences in terms of response to DNA methylating inhibitors (CR in 41% in muRAS versus 40% in wtRAS). ARA-C-based regimens resulted in better CR in wtRAS than muRAS (59% vs 25%); however, the size of muRAS group was too small (1 out 4 pts).There was a trend towards shorter overall survival (OS) in the muRAS group compared to wtRAS (395 vs. 500 days, p value=0.057). MuRAS RAEB (325 vs. 450 days, p= 0.13) and RAEB-t (125 vs. 375 days, p= 0.27) subgroups showed a trend towards worse OS compared to wtRAS group. There was a significant OS decrease in RCMD (150 vs. 700 day, p= 0.015). Surprisingly, muRAS CMML group showed a trend towards better OS compared to wtRAS (728 vs. 687 days, p=0.44). Additionally we analyzed patients for presence of Flt3 mutation. These were present in only 18 of the pts (4%) but none of them had also a RAS mutation. There was no c-Kit mutations found in this cohort of pts, compared to 9/37 (24%) pts tested positive for JAK2V617F. Conclusion: MuRAS occurs in 4% of pts with MDS. In the muRAS group, pts tended to have higher risk disease and risk of transformation to acute leukemia compared with wtRAS. OS tended to be worse in some subgroups in muRAS. Although the prognostic impact of RAS mutations in MDS appears to be limited, mutations could be used to develop targeted therapeutic interventions. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background Cytogenetic abnormalities have significant prognostic role in AML at the time of diagnosis. Several prognostic groupings have been recommended including the NCCN and European LeukemiaNet classification. It is still unknown whether cytogenetic abnormalities have any prognostic role at the time of relapse for predicting clinical outcome. In addition, clonal evolution (CE) has been seen in many AML cases, but its prognostic value remains to be identified. Aim To study cytogenetic abnormalities and clonal evolution impact on clinical outcome for patients diagnosed with rAML Method A retrospective, single institution study through chart review of all cases diagnosed with rAML at Mayo Clinic Rochester between 2003 to 2011 was performed. Pts who achieved complete remission and relapsed at our institution were included. Pts with PML-RARA and BCR-ABL rearrangements were excluded from this study. Pts with available cytogenetics data, both at presentation and relapse, were included. Response to treatment was defined as per international working group (IWG) criteria (Cheson JCO 2003). Appropriate IRB approval was obtained in accordance with Helsinki declaration. Comparison between groups’ medians was done using Wilcoxon test, while survival estimates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves using JMP V9. Results Out of 192 pts, 74 pts matched our inclusion criteria. The median age at diagnosis is 60 years (range 18-81), 53% were males. At relapse, median white blood cell (WBC) was 3.2 x109, hemoglobin 10.4 g/dL, platelet 59 x109, peripheral blood (PB) blast 2% (range, 0-96), bone marrow (BM) blasts 23% (range, 1-95) and cellularity 60%. Relapse site was mainly in the BM (95%). Flt3 mutation was found in 12/43 (28%), while NPM1 mutation in 2/7 (29%). Upon treatment with salvage therapy, 27 (36%) pts achieved complete remission (CR) and 16 (22%) pts partial remission (PR) for a total overall response (OR) of 58%. Twenty one (28%) pts were able to proceed to allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT) after achieving remission. Median overall survival (mOS) was 198 days. Pts had a longer mOS if they proceeded to SCT (386 days vs 121 days, p =0.0003). Cytogenetic analysis (CG) were diploid in 32 (43%) of 74 pts at relapse. Five pts had favorable cytogenetics (3 pts with t(8,21) and 2 pts with inv (16)). CG was divided into favorable, intermediate and poor prognosis as per NCCN classification in 5 (7%), 45 (61%), 24 (32%), respectively. As per European LeukemiaNet, there were 4 CG groups divided into: favorable, Intermediate-1, intermediate-2, and adverse in 5 (7%), 33 (45%), 12 (16%), 24 (32%), respectively. Upon comparison of CG at diagnosis and relapse; clonal evolution (a change in CG due to gain or loss of chromosomal abnormalities) was found in 42/74 (57%) of pts. CG reverted back to diploid in 8/42 (19%) or gained additional CG abnormalities at relapse in 32 (76%) pts. CR2 was achieved in 80% of favorable CG (NCCN grouping), 40% (intermediate), and 21% in poor risk (p=0.01). Using NCCN CG grouping mOS was: 435 days (favorable), 266 (intermediate), and 104 (poor) (p value = 0.01). However, using European LeukemiaNet grouping mOS was: 435 days (favorable), 174 (intermeidtae-1), 363 (intermediate-2), and 104 (poor) (p=0.004). CE did not affect mOS (p =0.7). On multivariate analysis, response to salvage therapy (p<0.0001), NCCN CG grouping (p =0.03), wbc (p=0.045), and PB blasts (p=0.01) were significant but not age, BM blast, platelet and CE. Conclusion CG were diploid in 43% of relapsed pts. CE (gain or loss of cytogenetic abnormalities) was seen in 57% of CG at relapse compared to diagnosis but did not affect mOS. NCCN (and not European LeukemiaNet) cytogenetic grouping did affect clinical outcome through both achieving second CR and mOS (both on univariate and multivariate analysis). Our results confirm the prognostic value of CG on relapse, and need to be confirmed by larger studies. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background Tunneled central venous catheters have traditionally been used for administration of chemotherapy (chemo) for acute leukemia treatment. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are increasingly being used, but there is an increased risk of PICC-associated thrombosis (PAT). There is limited information on management of PAT in this subgroup of patients (pt). Methods In this retrospective cohort study we investigated the primary management of PICC related upper extremity venous thrombosis (TB) in pt with hematologic malignancy undergoing chemo at Mayo Clinic Rochester. Eligible pt were 18 years and older, had documentation of PICC placement at our institution, initiation of chemo within a week of PICC placement, and the TB was objectively documented by compression venous ultrasound (CVU). Superficial venous TB (SVT) was defined as TB of subcutaneous veins (basilic and cephalic) and deep venous TB (DVT) defined as TB of brachial, axillary, subclavian, or innominate superior vena cava and internal jugular veins. We retrospectively stratified initial management (IM) into 1) PICC removal alone (PR), 2) PR and therapeutic anticoagulation (AC), 3) AC alone, and 4) conservative management (CM) consisting of symptomatic care and observation. We also investigated factors influencing IM of PAT. Long term outcomes including incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE), post phlebitic syndrome and recurrence of TB were noted. Results Between 2006 and 2012, 190 pt with AML (n=160), MDS or MDS/MF (n=10), or ALL (n=20) met our study criteria. Overall, 40/190 (21.6%) developed PAT: AML n=38, ALL n=1, MDS/MF n=1. SVT occurred in 16/40 (40%) pt and DVT occurred in 24/40 (60%) pt. IM is shown in Table 1. One pt with SVT received AC for 6 weeks as well as PR. In this pt, IM included AC because of proximity of TB to deep veins. 7 pt had a follow up (f/u) CVU within 3 months demonstrating: TB progression (prog, n=1, IM with PR alone but with prog AC was started); TB stability (stab, n=2, both IM with PR alone) and TB resolution/improvement (R/I, n= 4, 2 IM with PR and 2 IM with CM) In the 5 pt with CM, 2 pt had f/u CVU demonstrating improvement, one pt had charted clinical improvement , and 2 pt had no charted clinical f/u. Of DVT pt on AC (n=14), 5 pt completed at least 2 months of AC. Reasons for early cessation (n=9) of AC included thrombocytopenia (tcp, n=4), hematoma (n=1), hematuria (n=1), subarachnoid hemorrhage (n=1), and unknown (n=1). One pt died 2 days after presence of DVT was noted. Two pt initially treated with PR alone developed a second TB with placement of a new PICC on contralateral arm and AC was subsequently initiated (duration: 3 months (n=1), and 8 days (n=1)). 14 pt with DVT had f/u CVU within 3 months which demonstrated prog (n=2), stab (n= 8), or R/I ( n=4) of TB (Table 2). The 2 pt with TB prog subsequently received longer term AC guided by platelet count. In 5 pt with PICC not initially removed, 3 pt had PR after completion of chemo. (1-4 days), one pt had PR at discharge (27 days from TB), and one pt had PICC in place on discharge. One pt with DVT experienced a PE within one year f/u. This pt had initially completed 3 days of AC which was stopped because of tcp. Conclusion In this cohort of patients with PAT, the most common IM consisted of PR, which appeared to result in a low recurrence rate among pt with SVT. In pt with DVT, the role of AC remains to be defined given the abbreviated course of AC in most pt. Though, the lack of CVU followup in all pt limits conclusions, there appeared to be a low rate of symptomatic prog. Initiation of AC was largely guided by platelet count and degree of occlusive symptoms. Thrombocytopenia was also the most commonly cited reason for discontinuing AC. Close clinical follow up aided by the use of CVU was integral to ensure that PAT did not lead to further adverse events. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.