Citations

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) withHR-MDS have a median OS of 4 to 6 months (mo) after HMA failure (Prebet et al, J Clin Oncol 2011) and no approved salvage therapy. Development of new therapeutics for this population will benefit from the availability of surrogate endpoints and markers that can predict survival. Gore et al established response to azacitidine (Vidaza®) in first-line therapy for HR-MDS as a reasonable surrogate to predict survival (Gore et al, Haematologica 2013). Rigosertib, a novel dual PI3K/PLK pathway inhibitor, has been shown to reduce bone marrow blasts (BMBL) in these pts (Seetharam et al, Leuk Res 2012). Silverman et al described complete or partial bone marrow (BM) response, or stabilization after 4-8 weeks (wks) of treatment with rigosertib as a potential surrogate for predicting survival in pts with HR-MDS after failure of primary HMA therapy (Silverman et al, Hematol Oncol 2014). We tested this hypothesis in the context of a randomized Phase III trial. Methods:Pts with HR-MDS were randomly assigned 2:1 to rigosertib or best supportive care (BSC) after progressing on, failing to respond to, or relapsing after HMA treatment. BM aspirates were assessed pretreatment, at 4 weeks and at 8-week intervals thereafter. Central slide review was undertaken in a representative population of samples. The BMBL response at each time point was assessed using the following definitions: bone marrow complete response (mCR) = BMBL ≤ 5% and decrease of ≥ 50% from baseline; bone marrow partial response (mPR) = BMBL decrease from baseline of ≥ 50%, but BMBL still > 5%; stable disease (SD) = BMBL decrease or increase from baseline of < 50%; progressive disease (PD) = BMBL increase from baseline of ≥ 50% by an absolute minimum of 5%; Not evaluable (NE). Results:Bone marrow assessment was carried out in 156 patients (pts) on the rigosertib arm and 24 pts on the BSC arm at 4 wks after enrollment, and in 86 and 20 pts, respectively, at 12 wks. The invasive BM procedure was optional on the BSC arm, which accounts for the low number of assessments in this group. BM responses at the 2 time points are presented in Table 1. Since no difference in overall survival was noted between pts who had objective BM response and those who did not progress (ie, stable disease), a landmark analysis was conducted that separated pts who were alive at the 4-wk landmark time into two 4-wk response categories: BM response + SD vs. PD. Results of this analysis in rigosertib-treated patients were statistically significant at p = 0.011, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62 and a median OS (from 4 wks onward) of 9.8 months in the mCR + mPR + SD group vs. 4.6 months in the PD group (Figure 1). Another landmark analysis was conducted at 12-wks. Results of this analysis were also significant (p < 0.001) in rigosertib-treated patients, with an HR of 0.39 and a median OS (from 12 wks onward) of 10.4 months in the mCR + mPR + SD group vs.7.5 months in the PD group (Figure 2). A time-dependent Cox regression of OS by 4-wk BMBL response reinforced the validity of the 4-wk and 12-wk BM assessments as surrogate biomarkers for survival (Table 2). Conclusions: These data suggest that BMBL response at 4 or 12 weeks was correlated with OS in this population of pts with HR-MDS treated with rigosertib after HMA failure and are consistent with previous observations in Phase II studies. Table 1 4- and 12-week Bone Marrow Blast Response (Intention-to-Treat Population) Number (%) of Patients 4-wk BMBL Response 12-wk BMBL Response Rigosertib N = 199 BSC N = 100 Rigosertib N = 199 BSC N = 100 Pts with BMBL assessment 156 (78) 24 (24)* 86 (43) 20 (20)* BM complete response (mCR) 22 4 11 5 BM partial response (mPR) 8 2 9 2 Stable disease (SD) 77 9 32 8 Progressive disease (PD) 49 9 34 5 * Bone marrow assessment was not required on the BSC arm. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Table 2 Time-dependent Cox Regression of Overall Survival by Bone Marrow Blast Response Analysis Rigosertib BSC Wald P-value Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) Wald P-value Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) By 4-wk BMBL response 0.051 0.72 (0.51 - 1.00) 0.56 0.83 (0.45 - 1.54) By 12-wk BMBL response 0.0005 0.55 (0.39 - 0.77) 0.16 0.68 (0.39 - 1.17) *Stratified by pretreatment BMBL: 5%-19% vs. 20%-30% Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment.

Abstract Background: Combination studies with histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors plus hypomethylating agents (HMA) have suggested beneficial clinical activity in higher risk MDS and AML, though exceptions have also been reported. Pracinostat is a potent oral HDAC inhibitor selective for class I, II and IV isoforms. A pilot phase Ib study of pracinostat in combination with azacitidine (AZA) in higher risk MDS demonstrated a complete response (CR)/CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) rate of 89% (Proc ASH:3821, 2012). Preliminary data on 33 patients from a multi-center, open-label, single-arm Phase II study of Pracinostat in combination with AZA in elderly AML also reported a high CR/CRi rate (ASH 2014). Herein we report the latest survival and response results for this study. Methods: Eligibility includes previously untreated AML (≥20% bone marrow blasts), age ≥65 years, unsuitable for intensive therapy due to co-morbidities and/or AML related features, and intermediate or high-risk cytogenetics. Study therapy includes pracinostat, 60 mg p.o. 3 alternate days/week for 3 weeks plus AZA, 75 mg/m2) days 1-7 or days 1-5 and 8-9 either s.c. or i.v. with cycles repeated every 28 days until progressive disease, lack of response or intolerance. The primary endpoint is CR+CRi+ morphologic leukemia free state (MLFS) per IWG criteria. Response assessments occur at the end of cycle 1 or 2 then every other cycle or when clinically indicated. A Simon 2-stage statistical design is utilized with the following assumptions: null=0.10, alternate=0.25, a=0.10, power=0.90. Stage 1 n=27 and total stage 2 n=40. Secondary endpoints include overall response rate (ORR; CR+CRi+MLFS+partial response [PR]+PRi), duration of response and overall survival. Results: Between Dec 2013 and Dec 2014, 50 patients from 15 study sites were enrolled. At this time, 50 are evaluable for efficacy. Baseline disease characteristics for all patients include: median age 75 (range 66-84); 32 de novo AML, 13 evolved from AHD, 5 were treatment-related; 28 intermediate-risk and 20 high-risk cytogenetics and 2 unknown; baseline bone marrow blast counts ranged from 20% to 89% with a median of 40%. Thirty-one patients (62%) continue to be followed for survival (range: 8.5 to 18.5 months). Median overall survival has not been reached in the overall study population and neither in patients with high-risk cytogenics or those with AML secondary to MDS or prior anti-cancer therapy. The 1-year overall survival estimate is 60%. The primary endpoint of CR +CRi +MLFS has been observed in 27/50 evaluable patients (54%) to date, including 21/50 (42%) CR. The 60-day all-cause mortality rate is 10% (5/50). Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) Grade ≥3 seen in >5% of patients: febrile neutropenia 30%; thrombocytopenia 22%; neutropenia 10%; cellulitis 10%; anemia 8%; fatigue 8%; sepsis 6%, and pancytopenia 6%. TEAE's leading to study therapy discontinuation: peripheral motor neuropathy (1), parainfluenza (1), atrial fibrillation/prolonged QTc (1), subdural hematoma after a fall (1), and sepsis (3). Conclusions: Pracinostat plus AZA produces a high rate of durable responses in this AML population. Median overall survival has not been reached; 1-year overall survival is estimated at 60%. Final response data and overall survival estimates will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Off Label Use: Azacitidine is not approved for use in acute myelogenous leukemia.. Khaled:Sequenom: Research Funding. Arellano:Cephalon Oncology: Research Funding. Butler:MEI Pharma, Inc.: Employment. Ashby:MEI Pharma, Inc.: Employment. Medeiros:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria.

Abstract Background: No approved treatment options are available to HR-MDS pts after HMA therapy. Study 04-21 (“ONTIME” trial) was a Phase III, randomized, controlled study of the efficacy and safety of rigosertib, a novel small molecule inhibitor of PI3-kinase and PLK pathways, in a heterogeneous population of MDS pts who had relapsed after, failed to respond to, or progressed during administration of HMAs. The study was conducted at 87 sites in the United States and 5 European countries. Methods:From Dec 2010 to Aug 2013, 299 HR-MDS pts [<30% bone marrow blasts (BMBL)] who had progressed on (37% of total enrollment), failed to respond to (25%), or relapsed after (38%) HMA treatment were stratified on BMBL count and randomized 2:1 to receive rigosertib (199 pts) or BSC (100 pts). Rigosertib was administered at 1800 mg/24 hr for 72-hr as a continuous intravenous (CIV) ambulatory infusion, every 2 weeks for the first 16 weeks, and then every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), analyzed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis using the Kaplan-Meier method stratified on BMBL (5% to 19% vs. 20% to 30%). The trial had a 95% power to detect a 13-wk increase in median OS from 17 wks on BSC, with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05. The following results are based on 242 deaths: 161 in the rigosertib arm and 81 in the BSC arm. Results : Overall, the 2 arms were balanced in terms of baseline characteristics, with the majority of pts being male (66%), and White (82%). Age ranged from 50-90 yrs in the rigosertib arm and 55-86 years in the BSC arm (median, 74 yrs). The majority of pts (85%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0 or 1. The median duration of the last HMA therapy was 8.8 months (mo) in the rigosertib arm and 10.3 mo in the BSC arm; 127 (64%) of rigosertib pts and 57% of BSC pts were classified as “primary HMA failure” (ie, they failed to respond to or progressed during HMA therapy, as defined by Prebet et al, J Clin Oncol, 2011). A 2.3-mo improvement in median OS was found in the overall (ITT) population (8.2 mo rigosertib vs. 5.9 mo BSC) (Figure 1). The ITT survival for rigosertib was similar to that noted in Phase I/II studies (35 weeks). The stratified log-rank p-value was 0.33. The stratified hazard ratio was 0.87, which was quite different from the ratio of medians (5.9/8.2 = 0.72), due to the fact that the 2 survival curves converged at 15 mo. Notably, among the 184 patients with primary HMA failure, the median OS was 8.6 mo in the rigosertib arm (N = 127) vs. 5.3 mo in the BSC arm (N = 57), HR= 0.69, p= 0.040 (Figure 2). Multivariate Cox regression, adjusting for pretreatment prognostic factors, showed little change in the treatment effect. The following subgroups were correlated with better OS: pts with failure of/progression on HMA treatment, pts with duration of HMA treatment ≤ 9 mo, pts < 75 years of age, and pts with very high risk per IPSS-R (Figure 3). Rigosertib was well tolerated, with a median dose intensity of 92%. There were no significant compliance or operations issues related to ambulatory continuous infusion. Protocol-defined dose reductions were reported in 5% of pts, with 24% experiencing dose delays of >7 days, mostly due to unrelated adverse events (AEs). No obvious differences between rigosertib and BSC were found in the incidence of AEs (rigosertib, 99%; BSC, 85%) or of ≥ Grade 3 AEs (rigosertib, 79%; BSC, 68%). In the rigosertib arm, AEs reported by ≥ 20% of pts, irrespective of severity or causality, were nausea (35%), diarrhea (33%), constipation (31%), fatigue (30%), fever (27%), anemia (22%), and peripheral edema (21%). Rigosertib had low myelotoxicity, consistent with previous clinical experience. Conclusions:Although the primary endpoint in this Phase III study of rigosertib vs BSC in pts with HR-MDS did not reach statistical significance in the ITT population, encouraging rigosertib treatment-related improvement in OS was noted in several subgroups of MDS pts, including those with “primary HMA failure and in patients in the IPSS-R Very High Risk category. CIV therapy with rigosertib had a favorable safety profile in this orphan population of elderly pts with MDS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Figure 3 Figure 3. Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Glaxo SmithKline: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Teva Oncology: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Maniar:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment.

Abstract Pracinostat, a potent oral pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor with modest single-agent activity in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), has shown synergistic antitumor activity when combined with azacitidine. This single-group, multicenter phase 2 study assessed the safety and efficacy of pracinostat combined with azacitidine in patients who were at least 65 years old with newly diagnosed AML and who were ineligible for standard induction chemotherapy. Patients received pracinostat 60 mg/d, 3 d/wk, for 3 consecutive weeks, plus azacitidine 75 mg/m2 daily for 7 days in a 28-day cycle. Primary endpoints were complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi), and morphologic leukemia-free state (MLFS) rates of the combination. Secondary endpoints included safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) of the regimen. Fifty patients (33 de novo, 12 secondary, and 5 therapy-related AML) were enrolled. Twenty-six patients (52%) achieved the primary endpoint of CR (42%), CRi (4%), and MLFS (6%). Median OS and PFS were 19.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 10-26.5 months) and 12.6 months (95% CI, 10-17.7 months), respectively, with a 1-year OS rate of 62%. Forty-three patients (86%) experienced at least 1 grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event with the combination, with infections (52%), thrombocytopenia (46%), and febrile neutropenia (44%) reported as the most common toxicities. The 30- and 60-day all-cause mortality rates were 2% and 10%, respectively. DNA sequencing revealed somatic mutations at baseline, and clearance rates correlated with response to treatment. Pracinostat plus azacitidine is a well-tolerated and active regimen in the frontline treatment of older patients with AML unfit for intensive therapy. A larger controlled trial is ongoing. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01912274.

7034 Background: In a phase II study in 50 elderly patients (pts) with AML who were not eligible for intensive chemotherapy, treatment with pracinostat + azacitidine (AZA) was well tolerated, led to 42% complete remission (CR) rate and a median overall survival (OS) of 19.1 months (Blood 2016: 128;100). Here we investigate the impact of somatic mutations and their clearance on disease response and patient outcomes. Methods: 88 samples from 41 study pts were sequenced. All 41 pts were analyzed pre-treatment, and a median of 3 longitudinal samples were analyzed from 19 pts between Cycle 2 and 9. Mutations were assayed by SureSelect targeted capture exon sequencing (Agilent) of 295 genes that are recurrently mutated in hematologic malignancies. Longitudinal mutation clearance was analyzed by plotting variant allele frequency (VAF). Results: At baseline, 96 mutations in 28 genes were detected in 38 pts, with the most frequent being in SRSF2 (27%), DNMT3A (20%), IDH2 (17%), RUNX1 (17%), and TET2(17%). Mutations associated with CR rate and OS are indicated in the Table. A CR was achieved in 10/19 pts that had longitudinal sequencing analysis and at the time of CR, 9 (90%) had persistently detectable mutations in their bone marrow. In 7 of them, continued exposure to pracinostat + AZA lowered the VAF or cleared residual mutations. In 2 pts, relapsed samples showed re-expansion of the founder clone. Conclusions: Mutations in NPM1, and DNA methylation pathway were associated with a better response to pracinostat + AZA, while TP53 mutation was associated with a poor response. Persistent mutation at the time of CR suggests residual preleukemic clonal hematopoiesis in this elderly population. Benefit of prolonged exposure to pracinostat + AZA was also confirmed at molecular level where continued decline of mutation VAF was seen after achieving CR. Clinical trial information: NCT01912274. [Table: see text]