Citations

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

Abstract The availability and use of blinatumomab symbolizes a paradigm shift in the management of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort analysis of 239 ALL patients (227 relapsed refractory [RR], n = 227; minimal residual disease [MRD], n = 12) who received blinatumomab outside of clinical trials to evaluate safety and efficacy in the “real-world” setting. The median age of patients at blinatumomab initiation was 48 years (range, 18-85). Sixty-one (26%) patients had ≥3 prior therapies and 46 (19%) had allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation before blinatumomab. The response rate (complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery) in patients with RR disease was 65% (47% MRD−). Among 12 patients who received blinatumomab for MRD, 9 (75%) patients achieved MRD negativity. In patients with RR disease, median relapse-free survival and overall survival (OS) after blinatumomab was 32 months and 12.7 months, respectively. Among patients who received blinatumomab for MRD, median relapse-free survival was not reached (54% MRD− at 2 years) and OS was 34.7 months. Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, and hepatotoxicity were observed in 3%, 7%, and 10% of patients, respectively. Among patients who achieved complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery, consolidation therapy with allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation retained favorable prognostic significance for OS (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97; P = .04). In this largest “real-world” experience published to date, blinatumomab demonstrated responses comparable to those reported in clinical trials. The optimal sequencing of newer therapies in ALL requires further study.

Abstract Background: Pracinostat, a potent oral Class I, II, IV histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, exhibited modest single-agent activity in relapsed AML. Inhibition of histone deacetylation and DNA hypermethylation induces re-expression of silenced genes in myeloid malignancies in a synergistic fashion. A pilot study of pracinostat with azacitidine (AZA) in myelodysplastic syndromes showed the combination to be active and well tolerated (Blood2012;120:3821). We conducted a Phase 2 study to evaluate pracinostat + AZA in patients ≥65 years with AML not eligible for induction chemotherapy. Minimum 1-year survival data were reported previously (Blood 2015;126:453). Here we report long-term survival and response analyses. Methods: Main eligibility: Age ≥65, untreated de novo or secondary AML, ≥20% bone marrow (BM) blasts, not candidate for intensive therapy due to co-morbidities and/or AML features, intermediate or high-risk cytogenetics, and no prior treatment with HDAC inhibitors or hypomethylating agents. Treatment consisted of pracinostat 60 mg orally 3 days/week on alternate days for 3 weeks and AZA 75 mg/m2 subcutaneously or intravenously daily for 7 days, with cycles repeated every 28 days until disease progression, lack of response or poor tolerability. The primary endpoint was a composite complete response rate (cCR) of CR + CRi+ MLFS by IWG criteria. Response was assessed at the end of Cycles 2, 4, 6 and then every 3 cycles or when clinically indicated. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (cCR + PR), duration of response and overall survival (OS). Study registered under NCT01912274. Results: Between December 2013 and December 2014, 50 patients were enrolled at 15 U.S. sites. Baseline characteristics: Median age 75 years (range 66-84 years); 33 de novo and 17 secondary AML; 27 intermediate-risk and 21 high-risk cytogenetics and 2 not known; median BM blasts 40% (range 20%-89%), ECOG performance status 0-1 in 84% and 2 in 16%. The median number of treatment cycles was 6.5 (range 1-24+). A CR was achieved in 21 patients (42%), CRi in 2 (4%), and MLFS in 3 (6%) for a cCR rate of 52%. Median time to BM blasts <5% was 57 days (range 25-243 days) and exceeded 168 days (6 cycles) in 3 patients (12%). Median duration of cCR is 13.2 months (95% CI 10.9-21.5 months), with 6 of 26 patients (23%) continuing on therapy for a periods ranging from 20.5 to 29.5 months. With a median follow-up of 21 months, the median OS is 19.1 months (95% CI, 10.0-not reached). One-year and 2-year OS are 62% and 45%. Non-protocol therapies (NPT) were administered in 23 patients (46%). There was no effect on OS after censoring survival duration at the start of NPT. Response and OS by population subsets are summarized in Table 1. Non hematologic adverse events Grade ≥3 reported in >5% of patients: Fatigue 34%; anorexia 10%, cellulitis, pneumonia, asthenia and sepsis in 8%; urinary tract infection, nausea, back pain, hypoxia, hyponatremia, and syncope in 6%. Grade ≥ 3 hematologic toxicities in> 5% of patients: thrombocytopenia 46%; febrile neutropenia 44%; neutropenia 36%; anemia 30%; pancytopenia 6%. The 30-day and 60-day mortality rates were 2% and 10%. Conclusions: Pracinostat + AZA led to a high rate of responses in elderly patients with AML. Responses were durable and observed irrespective of age, cytogenetics risk, ECOG performance status, and de novo or secondary AML. Marrow remission was typically achieved early, but prolonged exposure was required in some patients to maximize response. The results compare favorably with historical single-agent AZA data in a similar AML population. A phase 3 study of AZA +/- pracinostat in untreated patients with AML unfit for standard induction chemotherapy is starting. Table 1. Response and Survival According to Baseline Characteristics Table 1. Response and Survival According to Baseline Characteristics Disclosures Atallah: Incyte: Consultancy; CTI biopharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Other: Grant review; Takeda: Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria. Arellano:Cephalon: Research Funding. Odenike:Geron: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Suneisis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI/Baxter: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Algeta: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghalie:MEI Pharma: Employment.

Background: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to the cytotoxic agent calicheamicin, which is approved for relapsed/ refractory (RR) B-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), based on efficacy demonstrated in a randomized control trial. We sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of InO in the "real world" setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in collaboration with 11 U.S. academic institutions, and evaluated the outcome of patients (pts) with RR B-cell ALL, who received InO outside of clinical trials. These pts were evaluated for response to InO, duration of response, overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Demographic and disease characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log-rank test. Duration of response was estimated among pts who achieve complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi). Results: From June 2016 to May 2019, 84 pts with RR-B cell ALL were identified. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age of pts at InO initiation was 50 years (yrs) (range, 20-87). Twenty-two (27.5%) pts had t(9;22) (Ph+ve) and 6 (7.5%) pts had t(4;11) (MLL gene) chromosomal abnormalities. Nine (11%) and 20 (25%) pts had CNS disease at diagnosis and at relapse, respectively. Median number of therapies prior to InO was 2 (range, 0-7), 40 (48%) pts had ≥ 3 therapies and 23 (27%) pts had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) prior to InO. Forty (48%) pts received blinatumomab prior to InO. Fourteen (17%) pts received InO in combination with chemotherapy and/ or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Overall response rate (CR/CRi) was 63%; 44% had CR with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by flow cytometry. Response rate in Ph+ve B-cell ALL was 73%. Twenty-three (27%) pts were successfully bridged to allo-HCT. Median response duration with InO was 11.5 months (mo); 32.5% had sustained response at 2 yrs (Fig. 1a). Median response duration post InO, censored at allo-HCT was not reached (NR) (51% in remission at 2 yrs) (Fig. 1b). Median OS after InO was 11.6 mo and 32% were alive at 2 yrs (Fig. 1c). Median OS post InO, censored at of allo-HCT was 13.6 mo (Fig. 1d). Median OS after InO in Ph+ve pts was NR (71% alive at 1 yr). Forty-nine percent, 27%, 6% and 5% of pts discontinued InO due to progression, allo-HCT, adverse events and maintenance therapy, respectively. Nineteen (30%) pts had dose interruptions. In terms of toxicities, 14 (17%) and 7 (8%) pts had grade (G)1-2 and G3 transaminases secondary to InO, respectively. One pt each had G2 and G3 pancreatitis, respectively. One (1%) and 2 (2%) pts had G2 and G4 veno-occlusive disease secondary to InO, respectively. Two of these pts were treated with defibrotide. Two (2%) pts died due to InO toxicity. A complete description of adverse events are summarized in Table 1. Conclusion: Our real-world data obtained by multicenter collaboration suggest that InO was well tolerated and had significant efficacy in this heavily treated patient population of RR B-cell ALL. Disclosures Liedtke: Celator: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Aldoss:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; AUTO1: Consultancy; Helocyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses. Curran:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yang:AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Advani:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding. Atallah:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy.

Background: Outcomes of patients with AML have remained poor despite the availability of cytotoxic chemotherapy, hypomethylating agents (HMAs) and targeted therapies. HMAs, such as azacitidine, in combination with Bcl-2 inhibitors like venetoclax have demonstrated response rates of 67% in newly diagnosed AML and 21% in relapsed/refractory (RR) AML (DiNardo et al. Blood 2019 and Am J Hematol 2018). While the combination of azacitidine and venetoclax is efficacious in AML, preclinical studies indicate potential mechanisms of drug resistance including overexpression of MCL-1, an anti-apoptotic protein (Konopleva et al. Cancer Cell. 2006). Pevonedistat is a first in class inhibitor of Nedd8 activating enzyme that has demonstrated activity against AML (Swords RT et al. Blood. 2010). Pevonedistat induces NOXA, a pro-apoptotic protein leading to neutralization of MCL-1 inducing apoptosis (Wang et al. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2017). Preclinical studies evaluating the combination of pevonedistat and venetoclax against AML cell lines have demonstrated synergistic effect (Knoor KL et al. Cell Death Differ. 2015). Hence, we hypothesize that the addition of pevonedistat to the combination of azacitidine and venetoclax would enhance the therapeutic efficacy by overcoming resistance to apoptosis. Study design and methods: This is an investigator-initiated phase Ib study evaluating the safety of pevonedistat, azacitidine and venetoclax. Patients aged 18 years or above with morphologically documented AML (de novo, secondary or therapy-related), ECOG performance status 0-2 and adequate organ function are eligible for the study. Major exclusion criteria are patients with isolated extramedullary relapse, hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) within 100 days of enrollment, active acute GVHD, veno-occlusive disease, acute promyelocytic leukemia, liver cirrhosis and severe liver impairment. While the dose escalation phase is available only for patients with RR-AML, the dose expansion phase can also include newly diagnosed AML patients who are ineligible for intensive induction. The study is planned to be conducted at Medical College of Wisconsin, Mayo Clinic and University of Pennsylvania. The primary endpoint is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicity profile of pevonedistat, azacitidine and venetoclax. The secondary endpoints include determination of response rates, duration of response, survival and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory endpoints include correlation of response rates with AML genomic profile, correlation of pretreatment levels of BCL2, BCLXL, MCL1, BAX or BAK with response, determination of changes in NOXA (PMAIP1) mRNA and protein expression pre-and post-pevonedistat treatment, evaluation of BH3 mimetic profiling on bone marrow samples by flow cytometry and assessing the sensitivity of leukemia and leukemic stem/progenitor cells to pevonedistat ex vivo. The study will follow 3+3 design with dose escalation (Arms A and B), de-escalation in case of dose limiting toxicity (DLT) (arms Z and Y) and dose expansion phase (figure 1). Patients will be entered sequentially to each dose level, starting with dose level 0. The DLT observation period for dose-escalation will be 1 cycle. The maximal tolerated dose (MTD) will be defined as the highest dose level at which none of the first 3 treated subjects, or no more than 1 of the first 6 treated subjects experiences a DLT. A minimum of 9 and a maximum of 24 patients will be needed for the dose escalation phase and 6 patients for the dose expansion phase. Response rate, duration of response and exploratory endpoints will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier method will be used to determine survival. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Cardinal Health Inc.: Honoraria. Michaelis:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Macrogeneics: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; JAZZ: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, uncompensated, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; ASTEX: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding. Abedin:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Helsinn Healthcare: Research Funding; Pfizer Inc: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Runaas:Agios: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicine: Honoraria. Atallah:Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy.

Background Blinatumomab is a bispecific T cell antibody construct, that binds and allows CD-3 positive cytotoxic T cells to recognize and eradicate CD19-positive acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) blasts. The drug is approved for patient (pts) with relapsed/ refractory (RR) B-cell ALL and those with minimal residual disease (MRD) based on efficacy in clinical trials. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of blinatumomab in the "real world" setting. Methods We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in collaboration with 11 U.S. academic institutions, and evaluated the outcome of RR B-cell ALL pts, who received blinatumomab outside of clinical trials. These pts were evaluated for response, duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS) from the time of blinatumomab initiation and toxicity. DOR was estimated among pts who had achieved complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi). Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log-rank test. Results From December 2014 to May 2019, 239 pts with B-cell ALL were identified. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age of pts at blinatumomab initiation was 48 years (yrs) (range, 18-85). Sixty-one (26%) pts had Philadelphia chromosome [t(9;22)] positive (Ph+ve) disease. Sixty-one (26%) pts had ≥ 3 prior therapies and 46 (19%) pts had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-two (9%) pts received inotuzumab ozagamicin prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-nine (12%) pts received blinatumomab in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Twelve (5%) pts received blinatumomab for MRD. Response rate (CR/CRi) in pts with RR disease was 61%; 44% had CR with MRD negativity by flow cytometry. Rate of CR/CRi in Ph+ve B-cell ALL was 74.5%. Among 12 pts who received Blinatumomab for MRD, 9 (75%) pts achieved MRD negativity. Overall 113 (48%) pts were successfully bridged to allo-HCT. Median DOR in pts with RR disease was 32.1 months (95% CI; 9.5-not reached [NR]) (Fig. 1a) and when censored at allo-HCT was 14.8 months (95% CI; 5.2-NR) (Fig. 1b). Median OS in pts with RR disease after blinatumomab was 12.7 months (95% CI; 9.2 -17.9) (Fig. 1c) and when censored at allo-HCT was 8.6 months (95% CI; 6.4-11.6) (Fig.1d). Median OS after blinatumomab in RR B-cell ALL Ph+ve pts was NR (59% alive at 2 yr). Among pts who received blinatumomab for MRD, median DOR was NR and 54% sustained MRD negativity at 2 yrs. Median OS was 34.7 months (95% CI; 8.8-34.7) in group of pts who received blinatumomab for MRD. Seven (3%) pts discontinued blinatumomab due to adverse events and 40 (21%) pts had dose interruptions. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade (G) was reported in higher number of pts (93 [39%]) compared to clinical trials, though G3-4 CRS appears to be similar (G1-2 [36%], G3-4 [3%]). Forty-four (44%) pts were treated with steroids and 8 (8%) pts required tocilizumab with steroids for CRS. Ninety-three percent of pts had complete resolution of CRS. CNS toxicities were observed in 31 (13%) pts, among them 60% (n= 19) had G3-4 toxicities. Hepatic toxicities were observed in 84 (35%) pts as outlined in Table 1. Six (2.5%) pts died due to blinatumomab induced toxicities. Conclusion: Our real-world data with multicenter collaboration suggest that overall blinatumomab was well tolerated and had led to significant response in pts with RR B-cell ALL. Disclosures Advani: Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Aldoss:AUTO1: Consultancy; Helocyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses, Speakers Bureau. Podoltsev:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding. Curran:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Yang:Agios: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liedtke:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Atallah:Helsinn: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Older patients (pts) with AML unfit for intense induction chemotherapy have a poor prognosis with a 5 year survival of <10%. 225Ac-lintuzumab is composed of 225Ac linked to a humanized anti-CD33 monoclonal antibody. Data were previously presented on the initial 13 pts who received 2.0 µCi/kg/dose on Days 1 and 8 (ASH, 2017, Abstract 616). Although that dose resulted in a high response rate of 69%, there were 6 pts with Grade 4 thrombocytopenia lasting >6 weeks and 5 CRi patients did not reach an ANC of ≥ 500/µL. Therefore, the activity level was reduced to 1.5 µCi/kg/dose for further evaluation. Methods: This study enrolled older pts with untreated AML who were considered to be unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. Pts aged 60 to 74 years were required to have significant co-morbidities, while all pts ≥ 75 years were eligible. Other eligibility criteria included ECOG PS 0-2, CD33 expression on > 25% of blasts, and a peripheral blast count <200/µL within 10 days of the first dose to optimize targeting of bone marrow (BM) blasts. Hydroxyurea was used to lower peripheral blast counts. 1.5 µCi/kg of 225Ac-lin were administered IV on Days 1 and 8. G-CSF was given starting 10 days after the 2nd dose and spironolactone was given for up to 1 year to minimize the risk of radiation-induced nephrotoxicity. Pts were evaluated for the CD33 splicing polymorphism SNP rs12459419. Results: 18 pts were included in this prespecified Interim Analysis. An additional 9 pts were treated at this dose and will be included in an updated analysis at the ASH meeting. The median age of the 18 pts was 73.5 years (range 60-87) and median ECOG Performance Status was 1 (0 in 3 pts, 1 in 9 pts, & 6 in 2 pts). 11 pts had prior AHDs (6 MDS, 2 CMML, 2 NHL, 1 myelofibrosis), and 9 had prior treatment for AHDs. Of the pts with known cytogenetic and molecular genetic results, 1 had favorable-risk, 3 had intermediate-risk, and 5 had adverse-risk AML using NCCN guidelines. The median baseline BM blast % was 40.5% (range, 22-66%) with a median CD33 expression of 62% (range, 26-100%) of AML cells. Objective responses were seen in 4 pts (22%): 3 complete remissions with incomplete platelet count recovery (CRp) and 1 complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi). Among the responders with known cytogenetics, 1 pt had adverse genetics and 1 had Intermediate-risk genetics.Of the pts with remission, 3 had CT genotype for the CD33 splicing polymorphism SNP rs12459419 (including 2 CRp) and 1 had CC genotype. 3 of the responders are in follow up at Days 59, 169 and 266 without further treatment. Myelosuppression was seen in all pts including Grade 4 thrombocytopenia with marrow aplasia for > 6 weeks after the first dose in 4 pts. 1 pt with prior MDS had pancytopenia for > 4 months. The 3 pts with CRp achieved an ANC ≥ 1000/µL at Days 28, 38, and 40 from the first dose of 225Ac-lin. The pt with CRi did not reach an ANC of 500/µL. Non hematologic Grade ≥3 Treatment-Emergent adverse events (AEs) that were at least possibly related were 4 patients with febrile neutropenia, as well as 1 patient each with fungal pneumonia, acute respiratory failure, pulmonary edema, chest pain, sepsis, gastric hemorrhage, generalized muscle weakness, atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response and typhilitis. No pts had an infusion-related reaction requiring dose interruption. Veno-occlusive disease did not occur. The 30-day mortality rate was 16.7% (1 cardiac arrest and 2 with multi organ failure). Conclusions: Preliminary data from this Interim Analysis of 225Ac-lin monotherapy in older AML pts unfit for intensive therapy indicate a lower rate of myelosuppression at 1.5 µCi/kg/dose but also a lower response rate than was seen at 2.0 µCi/kg/dose. Although the study met the prespecified response criteria for continuing enrollment, it will be closed to further accrual in recognition that targeted radiation, like other therapies, will likely have the best outcomes when used in combination with other therapies in pts with active AML. An extensive development program in AML, MDS, and multiple myeloma is planned. One study will utilize 225Ac-lin in combination with salvage chemotherapy and another with venetoclax. 225Ac-lin will be used as a single agent for AML postremission therapy. In addition, 225Ac-lin will be used as targeted conditioning prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplant in pts with MDS with a complex karyotype and as a conditioning agent prior to autologous transplant in MM. Table. Table. Disclosures Atallah: Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Orozco:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Craig:Novartis: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Levy:Takeda (Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.): Consultancy. Finn:Ochsner Clinic Foundation: Employment. Perl:NewLink Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Park:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Roboz:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy. Tse:Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville School of Medicine: Employment; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Mawad:Swedish Cancer Institute: Employment. Rizzieri:Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Teva: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Arog: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Berger:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jurcic:Astellas: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The few therapies available to treat higher-risk MDS and CMML have limited impact on outcome. We previously reported initial results of S1117, which compared overall response rates (ORRs) of azacitidine (AZA) monotherapy to AZA combined with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (VOR), or the immunomodulator lenalidomide (LEN)( ASH 2014 LBA-5). We now report updated response data and overall survival (OS), subgroup analyses, impact of cytogenetics, and effect of treatment center volume/centers of excellence on outcome. Methods: This randomized, Phase II study (ClinTrials.gov # NCT01522976) enrolled higher-risk MDS (International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Int-2 or High and/or bone marrow blasts ≥5%) and CMML adult patients (pts) with <20% blasts from 3/12-6/14 to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/d on d1-7 of a 28d cycle), AZA + LEN (10 mg/d on d1-21), or AZA + VOR (300 mg BID on d3-9). Pts continued treatment until treatment failure, defined as disease progression, relapse, significant or unresolved toxicity, or lack of response. Dose reductions occurred for grade ≥3 adverse events (per NCI CTCAE) or delayed count recovery. Cytogenetic risk groups were defined per IPSS-R. The primary endpoint was improvement in ORR, by intention to treat and reviewed centrally, of one of the combination arms vs. AZA per 2006 International Working Group MDS response criteria (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + hematologic improvement (HI)). OS was from study entry. MDS Centers of Excellence (MCE) were defined per MDS Foundation; center volume was defined as low (1-4 pts enrolled) or high (5-17 pts). Results: Of 277 pts, 92 received AZA, 93 AZA+LEN, and 92 AZA+VOR. Baseline characteristics, previously reported, were similar across arms. Pts received a median of 22 weeks of therapy and were followed for a median of 10 months (range: 0-30). Non-protocol defined dose modification and protocol discontinuation due to toxicity occurred more frequently in combination arms vs. AZA (p=.0014 and p=.018, respectively). Responses are now assessable in all pts (Table 1). ORR was statistically similar for combination arms vs. AZA, with a trend for longer response duration (p=.083) for combinations. Within HI, AZA+LEN pts had higher HI-n than AZA pts (16% vs. 5%, p=.031). ORR for CMML pts was significantly higher for LEN+AZA vs. AZA (63% vs. 29%, p=.04), with a trend for longer response duration for combinations (p=.06); no differences in ORR were seen for therapy-related MDS, IPSS subgroups, or transfusion-dependent pts. Allogeneic transplantation rates were similar. Median OS (Figure) for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR was 15:18 (p=.38):17 (p=.17) months; p=.19 for combination arms vs. AZA. Median OS after failure was 7:9 (p=.6):9 (p=.05) months; p=.15 for combination arms after failure vs. AZA. For pts on therapy >6 months, there was a trend (p=.08) for higher ORR for AZA+LEN vs. AZA, though response duration was similar; median OS was 18:21 (p=.44 vs. AZA):21 months (p=.45 vs. AZA). Cytogenetic risk category distribution and ORR was similar across arms. OS (compared to Very Good/Good) was worse for Poor (HR 2.07, p=.022) and Very poor (HR 4.41, p<.001), without significant modification by treatment arm (Table 2). Compared to pts without identified cytogenetic abnormalities (abn), ORR across arms was better for pts with Chr 5 abn (OR 2.38, p=.004); OS was better for normal (HR .42, p<.001) and worse for Chr 5 abn (HR 3.1, p<.001), -7 (HR 2.69, p<.001), and 17p (HR 2.61, p<.001). While small numbers prevented definitive conclusions for treatment arm effect, combinations trended towards improving OS in Normal and Chr 5 abn only. The outcome of all pts and pts on discrete study arms treated at MCE (n=75) or high volume (n=138) sites were similar to non-MCE or low-volume sites for ORR, non-protocol defined dose modifications, dose adjustment in first 4 cycles, time to off-protocol (HR 1.2, p=.21 and HR .94, p=.64), and OS (HR .81, p=.3 and HR .77, p=.12). Conclusions: In higher-risk MDS pts, ORR and OS was similar for AZA monotherapy compared to combination arms, while for CMML pts, ORR was significantly higher with AZA+LEN. For cytogenetic subgroups, OS was worse for Chr 5 abn, -7, and 17p, and may be improved by combinations in normal or Chr 5 abn. MCE or treatment at a high volume site did not impact these effects or outcomes. Figure 1. Responses Figure 1. Responses Figure 2. Cytogenetics Figure 2. Cytogenetics Figure 3. Figure 3. Disclosures Sekeres: Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. List:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Odenike:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Stone:Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Buckstein:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fang:Affymetrix: Research Funding. Attar:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Erba:Ariad: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees ; Ariad: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees.

Abstract Abstract 1733 Background: Patients with myelofibrosis (MF) suffer from cytopenias, debilitating symptoms, and splenomegaly, all of which may contribute to shortened life expectancy. Cachexia is a common manifestation of MF. Its causes are multifactorial and include elevated inflammatory cytokines and mechanical effects of splenomegaly. It is a predictor of poor survival in patients with MF. Cachexia manifests as weight loss with low body-mass index (BMI; <20–21 kg/m2) (Strasser F. Sixth Research Congress of the European Association of Palliative Care; Wagner PD. Eur Respir J. 2008;31:492–501) and with metabolic indicators of poor nutritional status including hypocholesterolemia (total cholesterol <150 mg/dL or <3.89 mmol/L), which has been linked to poor prognosis in MF (Mesa et al. Blood 2007;110:abstract 2548). In the phase III, placebo-controlled, COMFORT-I study, ruxolitinib treatment significantly reduced spleen volume, improved MF-related symptoms, and exhibited a survival advantage compared with placebo in patients with MF. In this post hoc analysis, we investigated the effects of ruxolitinib treatment on weight and total cholesterol and the association of these changes with survival in COMFORT-I. Methods: Eligible patients in COMFORT-I were randomized to receive placebo (n=154) or ruxolitinib (n=155) at starting doses of 15 and 20 mg PO BID depending on baseline platelet count. Body weight was measured at baseline, and weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 and then every 12 weeks thereafter. Total serum cholesterol was measured at baseline and weeks 4, 12, 24, and then every 24 weeks thereafter. All patients receiving PBO completed crossover or discontinued within 3 months of the primary data analysis (when all patients completed 24 weeks and when half the patients remaining on study completed 36 weeks of treatment); thus, data for these patients were available for up to week 36 for weight and week 24 for total cholesterol. Kaplan-Meier analyses of overall survival were conducted in patients randomized to ruxolitinib stratified into 2 groups based on the median values separately for maximum weight gain and for maximum increase in total cholesterol during randomized treatment. Results: At baseline, mean body weight was similar between the treatment groups (72 kg, both) and mean total cholesterol was low (<150 mg/dL) in both treatment groups (ruxolitinib: 118 mg/dL; placebo: 115 mg/dL). The proportion of patients with BMI <22 were similar between the treatment groups (ruxolitinib: 23%; placebo: 28%) as was the proportion with total cholesterol <150 mg/dL (82%, both). Patients randomized to ruxolitinib experienced a gradual increase in body weight that stabilized by week 36 of treatment whereas patients receiving placebo experienced decreases in body weight over time (Figure 1). Similarly, total cholesterol increased in patients randomized to ruxolitinib and decreased in patients receiving placebo (Figure 2). Although total cholesterol increased over time in ruxolitinib-treated patients, increases did not exceed the upper limit of normal (199 mg/dL or 5.15 mmol/L). Nearly all patients randomized to ruxolitinib experienced weight gain (96% of patients) or an increase in total cholesterol (97% of patients). In patients randomized to ruxolitinib, weight gain above the median was associated with prolonged survival relative to lesser degrees of weight gain (HR=0.40; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.90; P=0.022; Figure 3). Similarly, increase in total cholesterol above the median was also associated with prolonged survival relative to a lesser degree of total cholesterol increase (HR=0.46; 95% CI: 0.21, 1.01; P=0.048; Figure 4). Meaningful comparisons with the placebo group based on the same stratification criteria could not be conducted as the majority of such patients experienced weight loss and decreases in total cholesterol while on the study; however, overall survival favored both ruxolitinib groups relative to all patients randomized to placebo even for ruxolitinib-treated patients with lower than median levels of weight gain or increase in total cholesterol. Conclusions: Ruxolitinib therapy promotes weight gain and improves total cholesterol in MF patients. These results suggest that the survival advantage exhibited by ruxolitinib over placebo in MF patients may be partly explained by reversal of the catabolic state and cachexia. Disclosures: Mesa: Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; YM Bioscience: Research Funding. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Gupta:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; YM Biosciences: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi#x2610;#x0025; Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Clinical Trial Support, Clinical Trial Support Other. Atallah:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sun:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sandor:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gotlib:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Support for travel to meeting for the study or other purposes from Incyte Other.

Abstract Background: Higher-risk MDS and CMML comprise a spectrum of disorders associated with cytopenias, high risk of transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and truncated survival. Initial treatment with a hypomethylating agent such as azacitidine (AZA) is considered standard of care. Whether addition of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (VOR), which acts synergistically with AZA to reactivate epigenetically silenced genes, or addition of lenalidomide (LEN), which impacts the bone marrow microenvironment, improves response rates compared to AZA monotherapy is unknown. Methods: This Phase II study (ClinTrials.gov # NCT01522976) randomized higher-risk MDS (International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Int-2 or High and/or bone marrow blasts >5%) and CMML patients (pts) with <20% blasts to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/d on d1-7 of a 28d cycle), AZA + LEN (10 mg/d on d1-21), or AZA + VOR (300 mg BID on d3-9). Eligibility criteria included: >18 years (yrs), no previous allogeneic transplant, no prior treatment with any of the study drugs, and adequate organ function; therapy-related (t)MDS was allowed. Pts continued treatment until disease progression, relapse, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of response. Dose reductions occurred for unresolved grade >3 adverse events (per NCI CTCAE) or delayed count recovery. The primary endpoint was improvement in overall response rate (ORR), by intention to treat and reviewed centrally, of one of the combination arms vs. AZA monotherapy per 2006 International Working Group MDS response criteria (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + hematologic improvement (HI)). Relapse-free survival (RFS) was from time of response. The study had 81% power to detect a 20% improvement in ORR from 35% to 55%. Results: Of 282 pts enrolled from 3/12–6/14, 276 are included in analyses (6 ineligible pts excluded): 92 on the AZA arm, 93 on AZA+LEN, and 91 on AZA+VOR. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced across arms (Table). Pts received a median of 23 weeks of therapy: 25 of AZA; 24 of AZA+LEN; and 20 of AZA+VOR and were followed for a median of 9 months (range: 0-26). Numbers of pts with notable adverse events >grade 3 for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR included febrile neutropenia (10:13:13); gastrointestinal disorders (4:11:23); infections (2:3:3); and rash (2:12:1). Responses were assessable in 260 pts (94%). ORR for the entire cohort was 33%: 19% CR, 1% PR, and 13% HI, with a median RFS of 7 months. ORR was similar across study arms: 36% for AZA, 37% for AZA+LEN (p=1.0 vs. AZA), and 22% for AZA+VOR (p=.07 vs. AZA). CR/PR/HI rates across arms were also similar: 23%/0%/13% for AZA; 18%/1%/17% for AZA+LEN (CR p=.47 vs. AZA); and 14%/1%/7% for AZA+VOR (CR p=.18 vs. AZA); rates of bone marrow exams to assess response were 76%, 67%, and 73%, respectively. HI-P/HI-E/HI-N rates were 21%/15%/5% for AZA, 26%/14%/15% for AZA+LEN, and 12%/8%/4% for AZA+VOR. HI-N rates were higher in AZA+LEN vs. AZA (p=.05) but otherwise were similar across arms. Median time to best response across arms was 15 weeks in AZA, 16 weeks in AZA+LEN, and 16 weeks in AZA+VOR. ORR did not vary significantly across arms in subgroup analyses for tMDS, baseline red blood cell (RBC) transfusion dependence, and by IPSS risk group. ORR for CMML pts for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR was 33%:53%(p=.15 vs. AZA):12%(p=.41 vs. AZA). Allogeneic transplantation rates were: 7 pts on AZA, 6 on AZA+LEN, and 9 on AZA+VOR. For AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR, median RFS was: 6:8:11 months (log-rank p=.3 for combination arms vs. AZA, Figure); and for pts on therapy >6 months, it was 7:7.5:13 months (log-rank p=.11 for AZA+VOR, .74 for AZA+LEN vs. AZA). Conclusions: In higher-risk MDS pts, ORR was similar for AZA monotherapy compared to AZA-containing combination arms, though some subgroups may have benefitted from combination therapy. Differences in types of response may have resulted from differential rates of follow-up bone marrow assessments. While a non-significant signal of a DFS advantage for combination therapy was observed, longer-term outcome data are being assessed. Table Table. Figure Figure. Disclosures Sekeres: Boehringer-Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: lenalidomide, vorinostat for higher-risk MDS. List:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Attar:Celgene: Consultancy. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.