Citations

Abstract Introduction: The most effective initial therapy for older adults with CLL has not yet been established due to the lack of comparison of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) and targeted therapy with the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib. CIT has been the gold standard since studies showing that addition of CD20 antibody to chemotherapy prolongs survival. Bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) is one standard, more aggressive CIT regimen for patients (pts) age 65 or older. While ibrutinib has been FDA approved for untreated CLL since 2016, it has only been compared to chlorambucil, which is relatively ineffective, and never before to aggressive CIT. Additionally, the benefit of the addition of rituximab to ibrutinib in this setting has not been prospectively studied in a phase 3 trial. As part of a randomized phase 3 trial, the Alliance sought to answer these important clinical questions. Pts and Methods: Alliance A041202 is a multicenter NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to CIT in terms of PFS. Additionally, this study sought to determine if adding rituximab to ibrutinib would prolong PFS over ibrutinib alone. At time of progression, pts on Arm 1 could cross over to Arm 2. Eligible pts were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl ≥ 40 mL/min, bilirubin ≤ 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified based upon Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. With 166 pts per arm, the trial was powered to detect an improvement in 2-year PFS from 61% in Arm 1 to 75% in Arms 2 or 3 (HR=0.586) using two one-sided log-rank tests with type I error rate of 2.5% and 90% power. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board approved the data release after meeting the protocol-defined efficacy threshold at a planned interim analysis with a one-sided critical value of 0.001538. These data were locked July 2, 2018; updated results will be presented at the meeting. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were registered and randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Median age was 71 years and 67% of pts were men. High-risk Rai stage (stage III/IV) was seen in 54%, unmethylated Zap-70 in 53%, and del(17p) or del(11q) by local FISH in 28%. Local vs centralized FISH was performed for del(11q) and del(17p) with agreement between local and central results in 94% (Kappa=0.80) and 97% (Kappa=0.76) of pts, respectively. 525 (96%) pts were eligible and included in the primary PFS analysis (Arms 1: 176, 2: 178, and 3: 171). With median follow-up of 32 months (mo), median PFS was 41 mo in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 (HR comparing Arm 2 to 1 is 0.40 with one-sided p<0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 1 is 0.41 with one-sided p<0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 2 is 1.01 with one-sided p=0.48). 2-year PFS estimates were 74%, 87% in 2, and 88% in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. At this time, there are no significant differences in overall survival (OS) among arms (p=0.87), median OS has not been reached for any arm, and 2-year OS estimates were 95%, 90%, and 94% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were compared among arms using Fisher's exact tests. Grade 3+ treatment-emergent AEs were seen in 428 of 537 evaluable pts with 61%, 41%, and 38% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ heme AEs (p<0.0001) and 60%, 72%, and 71% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ non-heme AEs (p=0.03) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Grade 5 AEs were seen in 5 (2.8%), 14 (7.8%), and 14 (7.7%) pts (p=0.07). Unexplained or unwitnessed death over the entire observation period was seen in 2 (1.1%), 7 (3.9%), and 4 (2.2%) pts (p=0.24) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Conclusions: This international phase 3 trial demonstrates that ibrutinib produces superior PFS to standard CIT in older pts with CLL and justifies it as a standard of care treatment for pts age 65 and older. The addition of rituximab does not prolong PFS with ibrutinib. While ibrutinib represents a major therapeutic advance, toxicities and also cost justify future efforts to reduce the need for long-term continuous treatment. Support: K23CA178183, R01CA183444, U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01886872 Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding. Bartlett:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Brander:BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Parikh:Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Coutre:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lozanski:Novartis: Research Funding; BI: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Stem Line: Research Funding; Coulter: Research Funding; Beckman: Research Funding. Larson:Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Erba:Amgen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. Owen:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria. Abramson:Bayer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: The preferred post-remission therapy for older patients (pts) with AML remains uncertain. We compared outcomes for older AML pts in CR1 receiving HCT reported to the CIBMTR to older AML pts achieving CR1 on National Clinical Trials Network induction and non-HCT consolidation therapy (CT) trials. Methods: This study focused on pts 60-75 years of age treated between 2004 to 2013. CT pts (n=211) underwent induction and consolidation on Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, ECOG-ACRIN or SWOG clinical trials for initial therapy for newly diagnosed AML; the CIBMTR provided data for HCT pts (n=431). CT patients received at least one cycle of CT on study and were excluded if HCT occurred at any time. Time to event started at CR1 and pts entered at CT or HCT, respectively, using left-truncation to account for differential entry times. Results: For the CT cohort, first consolidation included standard therapy (e.g., cytarabine or a hypomethylating agent) and additional study drug (e.g., bortezomib, dasatinib, sorafenib, and Zosuquidar, gemtuzumab) or tipifarnib alone. Among HCT pts, the donor was a HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor (URD) in 66% and the others were partially HLA-matched/mismatched URD (10%) or cord blood (24%). HCT pts were younger and more frequently had high-risk AML (high WBC, secondary AML and unfavorable cytogenetics) (Table). The median time from CR1 to HCT and CT was 3.2 and 0.5 months, respectively. Allogeneic HCT showed worse overall survival (OS) (HR=1.52, p=0.02) prior to 9 months and better OS thereafter (HR= 0.53, p <0.0001) relative to CT (figure 1A). Treatment-related mortality (TRM) was worse after HCT in the first 9 months (HR=2.8, CI: 1.5 -5.2, p=.0009), while relapse was less frequent beyond 9 months after treatment (HR = 0.42, CI: 0.29 to 0.61, p<.0001). Despite higher early TRM, HCT recipients went on to manifest superior OS [5 year OS: HCT 29% (24-34%), CT 13.8% (9 -22%)] (Figure 1A). The benefit of HCT for survival after 9 months was more prominent in those with unfavorable cytogenetics (Figure 1B). Multivariate analysis for OS showed no statistically significant effect of age or performance status, while unfavorable cytogenetics were detrimental (HR=1.74, p<.0001). Conclusions. Allogeneic HCT led to heightened early risks from TRM, but resulted in superior long-term survival in older AML pts receiving HCT relative to CT by reducing relapse. Efforts to attenuate early TRM after allogeneic HCT may further improve HCT outcomes for older pts. Disclosures Ustun: novartis: Speakers Bureau. Attar:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larson:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roboz:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Uy:GlycoMimetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Stone:Fujifilm: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Argenx: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Steering Committee; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Cornerstone: Consultancy. Foran:Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Weisdorf:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Equillium: Consultancy; FATE: Consultancy; SL Behring: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Abstract Background Survival rates for older pts with advanced HL (aged ≥60 yrs) were historically poor with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD). Reasons may include decreased tolerance of therapy, increased toxicity (particularly with bleomycin), comorbidities, and disease biology. The pivotal phase 3 ECHELON-1 study demonstrated superior 2-yr modified progression-free survival (mPFS) with frontline brentuximab vedotin + doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (A+AVD) vs ABVD in pts with stage III/IV cHL (Connors JM et al, NEJM 2018). The study allowed entry of older pts, with no upper age limit. Alternative dosing schedules of the A+AVD regimen have been studied (e.g., sequential brentuximab vedotin before and after AVD; NCT01476410, Evens AM et al, J Clin Oncol 2018). We report efficacy and safety results from ECHELON-1 for older pts with cHL and compare these with those for pts aged <60 yrs. Methods mPFS per independent review facility (IRF) for pts ≥60 years was a prespecified subgroup analysis of ECHELON-1. Additional exploratory safety and efficacy analyses were also assessed and compared with younger pts (<60 yrs). The study was not powered for age-based subgroup analyses; p-values are descriptive without multiplicity adjustment. Results 14% (186/1334) of pts in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population were aged ≥60 yrs (A+AVD, n=84; ABVD, n=102) and included in the sub analyses. Median age (range) of older pts was: A+AVD, 68.0 yrs (60-82); ABVD, 66.0 yrs (60-83). Baseline pt and disease characteristics in older pts were similar in both arms. ECOG PS scores were 0 (36% vs 36%), 1 (52% vs 54%), and 2 (12% vs 10%) in A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively. Pts received a median of 6 cycles with mean relative dose intensities for each drug (%) in older pts of: A+AVD, 92.3, 96.6, 93.3, and 97.9; ABVD, 97.3, 88.7, 93.3, and 95.9. With median follow-up of ~25 months, 2-yr mPFS per IRF was similar in both arms for older ITT pts (A+AVD 70.3% [95% CI: 58.4, 79.4] vs ABVD 71.4% [95% CI: 60.5, 79.8]; HR=1.00 [95% CI: 0.58, 1.72]; p=0.993). An exploratory analysis of standard PFS per investigator (INV) showed HR=0.85 ([95% CI: 0.49, 1.48]; p=0.576) (Table 1). For older pts with stage IV cHL (A+AVD n=51; ABVD n=67), there was an increase in 2-yr PFS per INV with A+AVD vs ABVD (74.0% [95% CI: 59.5, 84.0] vs 59.9% [95% CI: 45.6, 71.5]; HR, 0.66 [95% CI: 0.34, 1.26]; p=0.20); mPFS per IRF improvement with A+AVD in older stage IV pts was lower (HR=0.80; [95% CI: 0.42, 1.53]). In younger stage III/IV pts (<60 yrs) 2-yr mPFS per IRF and PFS per INV were also higher compared with older pts in both arms (Table 1). 66 of 83 older A+AVD pts required ≥1 dose modification of brentuximab vedotin, reasons were: dose reduction (n=27), dose held (n=4), dose delayed (n=51), brentuximab vedotin discontinued (n=17). In older pts, grade (G) 3/4 AEs occurred in 88% of A+AVD pts vs 80% ABVD pts; for younger pts, rates were 82% (A+AVD) vs 63% (ABVD) (Table 2). In older pts there were 3 (4%) on-study deaths in the A+AVD arm (1 each: hemophagocytosis, neutropenic sepsis, and myocardial infarction) and 5 (5%) with ABVD (all pulmonary-related). In pts <60 yrs, there were 6 on-study deaths (1%) with A+AVD vs 8 (1%) with ABVD. G3 neutropenia in older pts was (70%) A+AVD pts vs (59%) ABVD pts, and febrile neutropenia (FN) in 31 (37%) vs 17 (17%) pts. In older pts who had G-CSF primary prophylaxis (PP) neutropenia was seen in 4/10 (40%) A+AVD pts vs 1/9 (11%) ABVD pts (on-study FN in 3 [30%] vs 2 [22%] pts). In older pts, treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy (PN) was reported in 54 (65%) of A+AVD pts vs 42 (43%) of ABVD pts (G≥3 in 15 [18%] vs 3 [3%] pts), respectively. In pts <60 yrs PN was reported in 388 (67%) A+AVD pts vs 244 (43%) ABVD pts (G≥3 in 55 [9%] vs 8 [1%] pts), respectively. In older pts at last follow-up, 65% (35/54) of A+AVD pts and 60% (25/42) of ABVD pts had complete resolution (A+AVD, 39%; ABVD, 38%) or improvement (A+AVD, 26%; ABVD, 21%) of PN events. 2% older A+AVD pts had pulmonary AEs (both G1/2 pulmonary infiltration) vs 13% older ABVD pts. Conclusions For older ECHELON-1 pts, mPFS and PFS were similar in both arms. In the larger subgroup of younger pts, mPFS and PFS were improved vs older pts. As expected, incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was higher in older pts, with regimen-specific AEs seen, including fatal pulmonary events in ABVD pts. The high incidence of FN in older A+AVD pts points to the need for G-CSF PP. Disclosures Evens: Acerta: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics International DMC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy; Tesaro: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Connors:Merck: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche Canada: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Younes:Sanofi: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Merck & Co: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Radford:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Feldman:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Portola: Research Funding; KITE: Speakers Bureau. Tuscano:Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Oki:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Grigg:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pocock:Kent & Canterbury Hospital: Employment. Dlugosz-Danecka:Roche: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Engley:Seattle Genetics: Employment. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Jolin:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Gautam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract The prognosis of elderly patients (pts) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) remains poor, and novel therapeutic approaches are clearly needed. CD19 is expressed on the majority of precursor-B ALLs and represents an attractive therapeutic target. The anti-CD19 bi-specific engager antibody blinatumomab has demonstrated significant activity in both relapsed/refractory ALL and minimal residual disease (MRD) positive ALL. Therefore, we evaluated blinatumomab as a single agent in the upfront treatment of newly diagnosed elderly pts with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph) negative B-lineage ALL to determine response rates and overall survival (OS). Methods: Pts were treated at National Clinical Trial Network sites from June 2015 to September 2017. The primary objective of the study was to estimate 3-year OS. An IND was approved by the FDA and the protocol was approved by a central institutional review board. Eligibility: age > 65 years, newly diagnosed Ph negative B-lineage ALL with adequate organ function and no evidence of central nervous system (CNS) disease. Pts received blinatumomab for induction at standard dosing for 1-2 cycles until attainment of complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (defined below). Pts then received 3 cycles of blinatumomab post-remission therapy followed by 18 months of maintenance POMP (prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate). A total of 8 doses of intrathecal methotrexate were administered as CNS prophylaxis. Cytogenetic risk was ascribed by NCCN 2018 criteria and bone marrow samples were analyzed for the presence of the Ph-like signature. MRD was assessed centrally by 8 color flow cytometry pre-treatment, on Day 35 of induction cycle 1, and on Day 35 of re-induction (if applicable). Response was assessed at the completion of 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab. CR was defined as < 5% marrow blasts with no evidence of extramedullary disease and recovery of counts [absolute neutrophil count (ANC) > 1000/uL, platelets >100,000/uL]. CRi was defined the same as CR but ANC < 1000/ uL and/ or platelets ≤ 100,000/ uL. OS was measured from day of registration on trial until the date of death. Disease-free survival (DFS) was measured from the date the pt achieved CR/ CRi until relapse or death. Toxicities were graded according to NCI CTCAE version 4.0. Results: Of 31 pts enrolled, 29 were eligible. The median age was 75 years (range 66 - 84), 22 (76%) were male, median baseline white blood count was 3.7 x 103/uL (range 0.3 - 7,100), and median bone marrow blast count percentage was 86.5% (range 30-100). Three pts received hydroxyurea or steroids prior to treatment initiation. Cytogenetic risk at diagnosis was: poor (34% of pts; n=10), standard (55% of pts; n=16), good (3% of pts; n=1) and unknown (7% of pts, n=2). Testing for the Ph-like signature is being completed. The most common Grade 3-5 non-hematologic toxicities related to treatment during induction were hyperglycemia (14%), dyspnea (10%), febrile neutropenia (10%), hypertension (10%), and lung infection (7%). One pt developed Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and 1 developed Grade 3 neurotoxicity. No pts died during the first 28 days of treatment. The overall response rate (CR + CRi) was 66% (all CRs). Thirteen of the 19 responders have available MRD data post-treatment. Of these, 12 pts (92%) achieved MRD negativity, all at Cycle 1 Day 35. One pt required 2 cycles of blinatumomab to achieve CR. One pt proceeded to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. The median follow-up time is 1 year and median duration on trial is 170 days (6 pts are still on maintenance therapy). OS estimated by Kaplan Meier at 6 months is 79% (95% CI 58%-90%) and at 1 year is 65% (95% CI 43%-80%). DFS estimated at 6 months is 68% (95% CI 43%-84%) and at 1 year is 56% (95% CI 31%-75%). No baseline features including CD19 expression (by percentage or mean-fluorescent intensity) or presence of a CD19 negative subpopulation were associated with response. Conclusions: Blinatumomab was well tolerated and effective in the treatment of newly diagnosed elderly patients with Ph negative B-lineage ALL. Further follow up will determine the durability of these responses. Disclosures Advani: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy. Wieduwilt:Leadiant: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding. Park:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Consultancy. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Erba:Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Astellas: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background: The pivotal phase 3 ECHELON-1 study demonstrated superior efficacy of brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (A+AVD) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients with previously untreated advanced stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) with a 2-year modified progression-free survival (mPFS) of 82.1% in the A+AVD group versus 77.2% in the ABVD group (Hazard Ratio=0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60, 0.98; p=0.04). PN is a known toxicity associated with anti-mitotic agents, including vinblastine and the MMAE component of brentuximab vedotin. In the ECHELON-1 study, the incidence of any-grade PN events was 67% (442 of 662 patients) and 43% (286 of 659 patients) in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively; the incidence of grade ≥3 PN was 11% and 2%, respectively. At the time of the initial analysis, 67% of A+AVD-treated patients had either resolution (43%) or improvement (24%) of PN events. A total of the 92% of ongoing PN events were grade 1 (64%) or grade 2 (29%). Here, we report rates of PN resolution and improvement in patients participating in the ECHELON-1 study after long-term follow-up. Methods: Patients with Stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive up to six cycles of A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670). Pre-existing PN was an exclusion factor at study entry. Peripheral neuropathy was determined on the basis of a standardized MedDRA query; patients who developed PN were monitored throughout the study and those with ongoing PN at end of treatment were followed for resolution or improvement during the post-treatment follow-up period; follow-up visits were scheduled for every 12 weeks ±1 week until 36 months, then every 6 months until study closure. PN resolution was defined as completely resolved and improvement was defined as improved by ≥1 grade from worst grade as of the latest assessment. Results: At the time of the primary analysis, 51% (226/442) and 61% (174/286) of patients in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively, had resolution or improvement of PN events at EOT. Upon continued follow-up (~10 additional months) for approximately 30 months (range 0-78.5) after end of treatment, 76% (335/442) of patients with PN in the A+AVD arm had either complete resolution (59%, 260/442) or improvement (17%, 75/442) of their PN events compared with 82% (234/286) with either resolution (72%) or improvement (10%) in the ABVD arm. In the A+AVD arm, 90% of ongoing PN cases (n=182) were grade 1/2; grade 1=58% (n=106), grade 2=32% (n=58). Residual grade 3 PN was reported in 9% (n=17) of patients (1 patient with grade 4 PN died before resolution). In the ABVD arm, residual PN (n=81) was grade 1 (65%; n=53), grade 2 (30%; n=24), and grade 3 (5%; n=4). For the subset of patients with PN that had not resolved by end of treatment, the median time to resolution of all PN events from AE start date was 28 weeks for A+AVD and 14 weeks for ABVD, the median time to improvement of PN was 39 weeks for A+AVD and 18.5 weeks for ABVD. Conclusions: After approximately 2.5 years of continued follow-up, PN continues to resolve and improve for patients who were treated with A+AVD or ABVD in the ECHELON-1 study. In both study arms, the majority of ongoing PN cases are grade 1 or grade 2. Further follow-up is ongoing. Disclosures Radford: Celgene: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership. Connors:Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Canada: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding. Younes:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ansell:Affimed: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Gopal:Aptevo: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Brim: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Asana: Consultancy. Flinn:Trillium: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding. Pettengell:CTI: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Dlugosz-Danecka:Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Engley:Seattle Genetics: Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Purevjal:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Gautam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Kuruvilla:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Gastric cancer is one of the most pro-thrombotic tumor types, and after accounting for prevalence, it may be responsible for a significant burden of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). Patients with gastric cancer are also at high risk for gastrointestinal bleeds (GIB), making primary thromboprophylaxis and anticoagulation an ongoing treatment challenge. Due to these competing risks, patients with gastric cancer may not be eligible for clinical trials of thromboprophylaxis and treatment of cancer-associated VTE. Additional information regarding the severity and outcomes of both gastrointestinal hemorrhage and VTE in patients with gastric cancer would be useful to guide clinical decision-making. Aim: To determine the annual rates, inpatient mortality, length of stay and cost of VTE- and GIB-related admissions in patients with gastric cancer. Methods: We queried the 2009-2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, a nationally weighted hospital admissions database developed for the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, to identify adults (age ≥ 18 years) hospitalized with gastric cancer. Hospitalizations in which VTE or GIB were among the top-five discharge diagnoses, were considered an admission complicated by one of these events. In-hospital outcomes of patients with VTE were compared to those with GIB. We used linear regression models to analyze trends in outcomes over time and binary logistic regression with forward modeling to identify predictors of inpatient mortality. All statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS, version 24 (IBM, Armonk, NY). Results: Among a total of 253,680 admissions with gastric cancer, 17,831 (6.7%) experienced a GIB whereas 10,992(4.2%) had VTE. Of those patients who experienced VTE, the majority (49.7%) developed pulmonary embolism, followed by lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (41.8%) and upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (8.54%). The patients included in this study were mainly white (53.7%) men (63.6%) with a median age of 67 (IQR:20) years; and a mean of 6 (SD: 2.83) chronic medical conditions. The annual GI bleed rate remained stable during the study period (16% in 2009 to 17.2% in 2014: p = 0.67) with a significant downtrend in inpatient mortality (18.8% in 2009 to 13.7% in 2014: p <0.01). In contrast, the annual rates of VTE-related admissions showed a small but significant uptrend (15% in 2009 to 18.1% in 2014: p <0.01) and an uptrend in the inpatient mortality during the study period (15.7% in 2009 to 19.2% in 2014: p <0.01). The overall inpatient mortality was higher among patients with VTE than with GI bleeds (10.2% vs 6.5%, p < 0.01; OR univariate: 1.51, CI: 1.42 - 1.61, p < 0.01). The negative effect of VTE on inpatient mortality persisted after adjusting for possible confounders such as metastatic disease, several comorbidities and demographics (OR: 1.39, CI: 1.30 - 1.49, p < 0.01). The VTE-associated admissions had a slightly longer length of stay (median, 6 vs 4 days, p < 0.01) with a significantly higher cost compared to GI bleed ($45,599 vs $31,219, respectively, p < 0.01). Conclusion: In this NIS cohort of hospitalized patients with gastric cancer, GIB was more frequently observed than VTE, but those with VTE had higher inpatient mortality, longer length of stay, and higher hospital costs. Clinicians should be aware of patient-specific risk factors for both VTE and GI bleed and take these factors into account when discussing VTE prophylaxis and treatment with patients. Future studies should look to identify those patients with gastric cancer who would benefit most from primary VTE prophylaxis as well as identify ideal agents for the treatment of gastric cancer-associated VTE. Figure. Figure. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background Therapy-related myeloid neoplasm (tMN) includes t-myelodysplasia (tMDS) and t-acute myeloid leukemia (tAML) and are serious late effects of the treatment of cancer. Prognosis of tMN is poor, related to the increased frequency of adverse cytogenetics and other clinical features which predict poor response to conventional treatment. Over the last years, azacitidine (AZA) has become the standard of treatment for high risk MDS (Silverman, JCO 2002; Fenaux, Lancet Oncol 2009) and has shown efficacy in AML. AZA represents an interesting option for patients with tMN considering its safety profile and its efficacy in poor prognosis subgroups of apparently de novo MDS patients including those with monosomy 7. Most prospective trials of AZA have excluded patients with tMN. Most tMN data are retrospective or registry studies (Bally, Leuk Res 2013). This abstract presents the results of 47 t-MN patients prospectively enrolled as a specific cohort in the E1905 study. Methods E1905 study is a randomized phase 2 study from the North American Leukemia Intergroup (NCT00313586, Prebet , ASH 2010) testing 10 days of AZA (50mg/m2/d s.c.) vs. 10 days of AZA + the histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat (4 mg/m2/d PO days 3 and day 10). 6 cycles of treatment were planned; responding patients could receive up to 24 cycles. MDS, CMML, and AML with myelodysplasia-related changes were included. Patients with tMN were subsequently accrued as a separate cohort after amendment of the protocol. Response was assessed using IWG 2000 criteria (Cheson et al, Blood 2000); the primary endpoint of the overall trial was achievement of a normal hemogram in 25% of treated patients in either treatment arm. Results A total of 47 patients were included. Median age was 70 years (39y-83y), 45% male, and 94% of patients had ECOG PS 0-1. 29 patients could be subclassified as t-MDS and 18 as t-AML. At inclusion, median peripheral blood counts were: neutrophils 1.0 G/l, Platelets 35 G/L, Hemoglobin 9.2 g/l, peripheral blood blasts 0%, marrow blasts 14.0%. 68% of patients were RBC transfusion dependent and 40% platelet transfusion dependent. As expected, the cytogenetic evaluation showed a high frequency of unfavorable risk cytogenetics (74%) as compared to normal or intermediate risk cytogenetics (26%). Baseline characteristics were not statistically different between the 2 arms. 24 patients were treated with AZA monotherapy and 23 with AZA+entinostat. The median number of administered cycles was 4 and was significantly higher in patients treated with AZA monotherapy (6 cycles vs.3 cycles, p=0.008). 8 patients in the combination arm and 1 patient in the AZA monotherapy arm died of infection or hemorrhage before cycle 3. In an intent to treat analysis, overall response rates (CR, PR, or trilineage Hematologic improvement) were 11/24 (46%) in AZA monotherapy (95% CI 26 – 67%) and 4/23 (17%) in the combination arm (95% CI 5 – 39%, p=0.06 comparing the two arms). Median overall survival in the two arms were 12.8 months and 5.7 months (p=0.008). Conclusions In this group of very high risk patients with therapy-related myeloid neoplasms, the use of the novel 50 * 10 schedule of azacitidine monotherapy appears effective, with response rates comparable to those for patients with de novo MDS/AML treated on the same protocol (74 pts, 40% with unfavorable cytogenetics, ORR=32%, median OS=18 months). Because there are no prospective data examining the approved dose schedule of AZA (75 mg/m2/day * 7 days), it is not clear if this surprisingly high response rate derives from the current extended schedule of lower dose AZA, or would be true with standard dose AZA as well. This high response may enable many of these patients to proceed to allogeneic stem cell transplant. Entinostat combined with azacitidine at the dose and schedule applied in E1905 does not appear to be effective and tolerable as compared to azacitidine alone. Disclosures: Prebet: CELGENE: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Use of azacitidine in acute myeloid leukemia. Gore:CELGENE: Equity Ownership, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The phase 3 ECHELON-1 study assessed frontline brentuximab vedotin administered with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients (pts) with advanced cHL (NCT01712490). The primary endpoint of ECHELON-1, modified PFS (mPFS) per independent review facility (IRF), is defined as (1) progressive disease, (2) death, or (3) subsequent anticancer therapy (chemotherapy [chemo] and/or radiotherapy [RT]) following detection of a non-complete response (non-CR = Deauville score 3-5) at end of frontline therapy. A+AVD was superior to ABVD (hazard ratio [HR]=0.77; p=0.035) with 2-year mPFS rates of 82.1% and 77.2%; as previously reported. In pts with newly diagnosed cHL, the aim of frontline therapy is curative. Pts who do not achieve a satisfactory response to frontline therapy may initiate subsequent anticancer therapy prior to response criteria-defined progression. The measurement of traditional PFS becomes confounded, as pts may effectively be rescued from criteria-defined progression by subsequent treatment, resulting in an overestimation of PFS with frontline therapy (Connors et al. Haematologica 2016;101[s5]:22-3[P007]). To further evaluate modified and traditional PFS in the ECHELON-1 study, two sensitivity analyses were conducted. Methods: 1334 pts with Stage III (36%) or IV (64%) cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) on days 1 and 15, for up to six 28-day cycles. In addition to mPFS per IRF, mPFS per investigator (INV) was collected. A sensitivity analysis (mPFS-chemo) was performed in which RT following a non-CR at the completion of frontline therapy was not counted as an event: in this case, mPFS-chemo was defined as (1) progression, (2) death, or (3) receipt of additional anticancer chemo excluding RT for pts who are not in CR after completion of frontline therapy. A second sensitivity analysis of traditional PFS (PFS-traditional), defined as (1) progression or (2) death, was also performed. All analyses were performed per INV as, per protocol, IRF follow up of pts was not conducted after the initiation of subsequent therapy. Results: At 2 years, the rates of mPFS per INV (95% CI) for A+AVD vs ABVD were 81.0% (77.6-83.9%) vs 74.4% (70.7-77.7%), respectively; HR=0.72 (95% CI: 0.573, 0.914; p=0.006). Concordance between IRF and INV mPFS assessments was high among all pts in both arms, at 91%. A total of 123 mPFS events per INV were observed among pts treated with A+AVD, including 73 pts with PD, 15 deaths, and 35 who received additional anticancer therapy following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy, vs 164 per INV mPFS events among pts treated with ABVD, of which 103 were PD, 22 were deaths, and 39 were additional anticancer therapy following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy. Of the 35 (A+AVD) and 39 (ABVD) additional anticancer therapy events, chemo/RT following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy accounted for 11/24 and 17/22 of these events, respectively. For mPFS-chemo, a larger benefit in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD, with a HR=0.687 (95% CI: 0.534, 0.885; p=0.003), was observed. The 2-year mPFS-chemo (95% CI) was estimated as 84.0% (80.9-86.7%) for pts treated with A+AVD vs 77.3% (73.7-80.4%) for pts treated with ABVD. A total of 103 events were observed among pts in the A+AVD arm, including 78 pts with PD, 15 deaths, and 10 who received additional chemo following evidence of a non-CR at the end of frontline therapy, vs 145 events among pts treated with ABVD, of which 106 were PD, 22 were deaths, and 17 were additional chemo following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy. For PFS-traditional, an advantage in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD was also observed: HR=0.70 (95% CI: 0.54-0.91; p=0.006). The 2-year PFS estimate (95% CI) was 84.2% (81.1-86.9%) for A+AVD vs 78.0% (74.4-81.1%) for ABVD. In total, there were 101 PFS events in the A+AVD arm, including 86 pts with PD and 15 deaths; vs 140 PFS events in the ABVD arm, including 118 pts with PD and 22 deaths. Conclusions: Consistent with the primary outcome of ECHELON-1, a benefit in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD was observed independent of the inclusion of additional anticancer RT or chemo as survival events, in addition to progression or death. A traditional PFS assessment including only progression or death events demonstrated that A+AVD resulted in a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death compared to ABVD. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Connors: Lilly: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Canada: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Younes:J&J: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ansell:Pfizer: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kim:J&J: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celltrion: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Advani:Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Merck: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Celgene: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Millenium: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board. Bartlett:KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Straus:Onco Tracker: Consultancy; Roch China: Speakers Bureau; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Employment; JUNO: Consultancy; Medical Crossfire: Speakers Bureau; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy; InPractice Elselvier: Consultancy; Millenium (Takeda): Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Sureda:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hutchings:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dlugosz-Danecka:Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Engley:Seattle Genetics: Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Jolin:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Gautam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Radford:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Physicians are reluctant to recommend high dose intravenous (IV) iron infusion for iron deficient (ID) patients due to concerns of adverse events (AEs) including anaphylaxis. This retrospective analysis evaluates efficacy and AEs with LMW iron dextran (ID) total dose infusion (TDI) in patients with iron deficiency. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the Electronic Medical Records of 468 consecutive patients with iron deficient anemia (IDA) who received IV LMW ID between 01/2008 and 07/2011 in an ambulatory infusion center. Diagnostic parameters for IDA included hemoglobin [Hgb] <11 g/dL, transferrin saturation [TSAT] 19%, ferritin <100 ng/mL. The majority had documented intolerance of or inadequate response to oral iron. All received TDI of LMW ID (1130 ± 217 mg) over 1 hour after a test dose of 25 mg. Pre-medication was not used. Patients were closely monitored for AEs during and immediately after infusions. Laboratory data for baseline and repeat hematological parameters within 8 weeks following infusions were analyzed. End points were safety and efficacy. Safety data was available for all 468 patients. Follow-up data at 8 weeks was available on 315. Figure 1 Figure 1. Results: There were 103 males and 365 female patients. Most common diagnoses were GI bleed, chemotherapy, menorrhagia and chronic kidney disease. At baseline, mean Hgb was 9.8 g/dL, ferritin 92.08ng/mL, and TSAT 12.37%. At 8 weeks the mean hemoglobin increased to 10.97 g/dL (p =0.0001), Ferritin 279.63 ng/mL (p =0.0001), and TSAT 21.85% (p=0.0001). All tolerated the infusion well. There were no incidents of fever, chills, wheezing, hypotension, stridor, periorbital edema, anaphylaxis or death. One complained of chest tightness, but completed the infusion after several minutes and the administration of diphenhydramine and steroids. One developed a rash. Fatigue and myalgia were reported in 17.31% and 8.33% of patients respectively. Conclusions: This study demonstrates TDI of LMW ID can be given safely and conveniently over 1 hour in an outpatient setting without premedication to ID patients. Easily manageable minor reactions did not affect the therapeutic plan. No allergic or anaphylactic reactions were observed. This study demonstrated TDI of LMW ID improved hemoglobin levels more than 1 g/dL within 8 weeks. Consistent with the preponderance of published evidence TDI of LMW ID should be considered an important therapeutic option for iron replacement in patients with IDA. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 680 Cytogenetics play an essential role in determining the prognosis of patients with AML. However, there is still no validated cytogenetics grouping scheme that specifically applies to patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation, which hampers accurate prognostication and risk stratification. We studied 821 adult patients (median age 41, range 18–74) who underwent SCT between 1999 and 2004 for AML (excluding APL) in CR1 or CR2 and who were reported to the CIBMTR from centers with >20 patients meeting study criteria. 75% of patients received a myeloablative conditioning. 496 patients had a normal karyotype. The primary cytogenetics reports were manually reviewed for 92% of the patients with an abnormal karyotype. We compared the ability of the 6 existing grouping schemes (MRC, CALGB, EORTC/GIMEMA, SWOG/ECOG, DFCI, and Monosomal Karyotype (MK) classifications) to stratify patients, using both the Akaike Information Criterion in multivariable models and the C-statistic. Among all existing schemes, the DFCI system provided a marginally superior stratification for overall and leukemia-free survival. We also built a new classification using individual cytogenetic abnormalities in a Cox model that included other significant covariates (performance status, therapy-related disease, conditioning intensity, graft source, donor match, duration of CR1, and gender match). This CIBMTR scheme (see Table), which is similar to the DFCI scheme except for the inclusion of patients with t(8;21) in the intermediate group, could stratify patients into 3 groups with similar treatment-related mortality but significantly different overall survival, leukemia-free survival, and incidence of relapse. This scheme appeared to apply to both patients in CR1 and in CR2 (see FiguresF2). This transplant-specific scheme could be adopted for prognostication purposes and to stratify patients with karyotypic abnormalities entering transplantation clinical trials. Future studies may clarify the relative outcome of patients with t(8;21) and refine this scheme with the inclusion of molecular abnormalities. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.