ALBERT

Description: Introduction: Few treatment options are available to RBC transfusion-dependent pts with lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS) who are refractory/ineligible for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Luspatercept is a first-in-class erythroid maturation agent that binds select TGF-β superfamily ligands to reduce aberrant Smad2/3 signaling and enhance late-stage erythropoiesis. In the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled MEDALIST study (NCT02631070), luspatercept significantly reduced transfusion burden vs placebo. Longer-term efficacy analyses of the MEDALIST study (data cutoff Jan 7, 2019), including multiple responses, and safety are presented here. Methods: Eligible pts were ≥ 18 years of age with IPSS-R-defined Very low-, Low-, or Intermediate-risk MDS with RS (World Health Organization 2016 criteria); were refractory, intolerant, or unlikely to respond to ESAs (serum erythropoietin 〉 200 U/L); and required regular RBC transfusions. Pts were randomized 2:1 to luspatercept (1.0 mg/kg titrated up to 1.75 mg/kg, if needed) or placebo, subcutaneously every 3 weeks (wks). This analysis assessed the achievement and number of individual response periods of RBC transfusion independence (RBC-TI) ≥ 8 wks. Clinical benefit, defined as achieving RBC-TI ≥ 8 wks and/or modified hematologic improvement-erythroid (HI-E) response per International Working Group 2006 criteria, was also assessed, along with total duration of clinical benefit (time from achieving clinical benefit to discontinuation due to loss of benefit, adverse events [AEs], or other reasons). Longer-term efficacy and safety were also evaluated. Results: Pts were assessed for RBC transfusion burden/8 wks in the 16 wks before randomization: 66 pts received 2 to 〈 4 U RBCs (30.1% and 26.3% of pts receiving luspatercept and placebo, respectively), 64 received ≥ 4 to 〈 6 U (26.8% and 30.2%, respectively), and 99 received ≥ 6 U (43.1% and 43.4%, respectively); both arms had a median baseline burden of 5 RBC U/8 wks. Compared with our previous analysis and earlier data cutoff of May 8, 2018 (Fenaux P, et al. Blood. 2018;132:1), we now report that as of Jan 7, 2019, 72 (47.1%) pts treated with luspatercept and 12 (15.8%) treated with placebo achieved RBC-TI ≥ 8 wks. Analysis of multiple response periods of RBC-TI ≥ 8 wks in the luspatercept responders (i.e. initial RBC-TI ≥ 8 wks, followed by transfusion, followed by another period of RBC-TI ≥ 8 wks) demonstrated that 48 (66.7%) pts had ≥ 2 separate response periods, 22 (30.6%) had ≥ 3, 12 (16.7%) had ≥ 4 , and 7 (9.7%) had ≥ 5. Of the 12 pts achieving RBC-TI ≥ 8 wks with placebo, 4 (33.3%) had ≥ 2 responses; none had 〉 3. Overall, 48 (31.4%) pts receiving luspatercept and none receiving placebo remained on treatment as of the Jan 7, 2019 data cutoff. Median treatment duration was 50.9 (range 5.9-147.0) wks in pts receiving luspatercept vs 24.0 (range 7.4-103.0) wks in pts receiving placebo. Median duration of the longest period of RBC-TI ≥ 8 wks during Wks 1-48 was 30.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.6-50.9) wks with luspatercept and 18.6 (95% CI 10.9-not evaluable) wks with placebo. Median total duration of clinical benefit was 83.6 and 26.8 wks for pts responding to luspatercept (n = 97) and placebo (n = 20), respectively. Of the 97 luspatercept-treated pts evaluable for clinical benefit, median duration of clinical benefit in pts with baseline transfusion burden of 4 to 〈 6 U/8 wks was 87.9 (range 13-125) wks, of 〈 4 U/8 wks was 84.7 (range 21-147) wks, and of ≥ 6 U/8 wks was 64.9 (range 8-122) wks. Twelve luspatercept-treated pts did not require a transfusion after the first dose of luspatercept up to Wk 48 or until time of analysis; as of Jan 7, 2019 data cutoff, 3 (25%) of those pts maintained response. AEs occurring more frequently with luspatercept vs placebo (fatigue, diarrhea, asthenia, dizziness) occurred early (Cycles 1-4), were mainly grade 1 or 2, decreased over time, and were not associated with a higher dose level. Progression to acute myeloid leukemia was similar in pts receiving luspatercept (n = 3 [2.0%]) and those receiving placebo (n = 1 [1.3%]). Conclusions: Most LR-MDS pts achieving RBC-TI and/or HI-E with luspatercept in the MEDALIST study had multiple responses with durable clinical benefit superior to that of pts receiving placebo, including those with a high baseline transfusion burden. AEs were mainly grade 1 or 2, decreased over time, and were not correlated with a higher dose level. Disclosures Fenaux: Aprea: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mufti:Cellectis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Buckstein:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria; Acceleron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Díez-Campelo:Celgene Corporation: 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. Finelli:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ilhan:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Sekeres:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Komrokji:DSI: Consultancy; JAZZ: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy. List:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Zeidan:Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Honoraria; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acceleron Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Medimmune/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Verma:Stelexis: Equity Ownership, Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Laadem:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ito:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rampersad:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sinsimer:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Linde:Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership; Fibrogen, Inc.: Equity Ownership; Abbott Laboratories, Inc.: Equity Ownership. Garcia-Manero:Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Platzbecker:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Luspatercept is an investigational therapy that is not approved for any use in any country. Luspatercept is currently being evaluated for potential use in patients with anemia due to myelodysplastic syndromes, beta-thalassemia, or myelofibrosis.

Description: Background: Luspatercept is a first-in-class erythroid maturation agent that binds TGF-β superfamily ligands to reduce aberrant Smad2/3 signaling and enhance late-stage erythropoiesis. The phase 3 MEDALIST trial evaluated luspatercept in pts with RBC transfusion-dependent, IPSS-R-defined very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk MDS with ring sideroblasts (RS+) who were refractory, intolerant, or ineligible to receive erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. This study explored associations of gene mutations, as analyzed by next-generation sequencing (NGS), with response to luspatercept, as well as dynamics of gene mutations on therapy in MEDALIST pts. Methods: DNA was isolated from bone marrow (BM) mononuclear cells from 222 of 229 pts enrolled in the study (148 luspatercept, 74 placebo) at screening and, when available, following treatment. NGS of 23 MDS-relevant genes was performed at screening and every 24 weeks; mean coverage was 1,000-fold and the variant allele frequency (VAF) cutoff was ≥ 1%. BM cell populations were analyzed by cytomorphology. Response criterion of RBC transfusion independence (RBC-TI) of ≥ 8 weeks within the first 24 weeks of treatment was used for correlative analyses. Results: Mutations in SF3B1 were found in 91.0% of pts analyzed at screening (median VAF 42%, range 6-71%), consistent with the study population being RS+. Overall, a median of 2 (range 0-5) of the 23 MDS-relevant genes analyzed were mutated per pt. In addition to SF3B1, the most frequently mutated genes were TET2 (41.9%), DNMT3A (18.9%), ASXL1 (13.1%), and SRSF2 (8.1%). Mutation profiles were similar to those found in previous studies of refractory anemia with RS (RARS; Malcovati L, et al. Blood. 2015;126:233-41) and balanced between luspatercept and placebo arms. Numbers of mutated genes at baseline were distributed similarly in luspatercept responders (R) and non-responders (NR) (Figure A), and comparable response rates were achieved irrespective of number of mutations, with response rates of 36.4%, 34.9%, 42.4%, and 33.3% for pts with 1 mutation, 2 mutations, 3 mutations, and 4 or 5 mutations in the 23 MDS-relevant genes analyzed, respectively. Response to luspatercept was independent of the presence of mutations in any of the genes analyzed individually (Figure B) or when grouped by functional categories (e.g. spliceosome, epigenetic regulation, transcription factor, etc.) (Figure C). Circos plots of co-occurring mutations showed similar mutation profiles in R and NR (Figure D). Response rates were also similar regardless of baseline SF3B1 allelic burden (R: 43%, NR: 42%; P = 0.11). At baseline, BM erythroid precursors were higher in R (R: 32.8%, NR: 26%; P = 0.008; while R and NR had similar levels of RS+ cells [R: 80%, NR: 84%; P = 0.25], Figure E), consistent with the postulated activity of luspatercept on the erythroid lineage. When comparing the frequency of mutation changes in luspatercept- vs placebo-treated pts at week 24 of the study, no statistically significant differences were observed in the frequency of newly acquired mutations (13/126 [10.3%] pts in luspatercept vs 8/64 [12.5%] pts in placebo, P = 0.63) or mutation losses (4/126 [3.2%] in luspatercept vs 5/64 [7.8%] in placebo, P = 0.17). Evaluation of changes in allele burden (median VAF at week 24 vs baseline) for mutations in genes associated with adverse prognosis (ASXL1, SRSF2, U2AF1, NRAS, IDH2, GATA2, TP53, RUNX1, and EZH2; Bejar R. Curr Opin Hematol. 2017;24:73-8) showed no change between luspatercept- or placebo-treated pts (1.01-fold, n = 58 and 0.95-fold, n = 19, respectively, P = 0.69). Conclusions: Pts enrolled in the MEDALIST study had mutations consistent with RS+, lower-risk MDS with a preponderance of SF3B1 mutations; genes associated with poor prognosis (and other genes) were balanced between study arms. RBC-TI responses with luspatercept were achieved regardless of SF3B1 allelic burden, number of baseline mutations, and presence of individual mutations, including adverse mutations, or co-mutations. Disclosures Platzbecker: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dunshee:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Komrokji:DSI: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; JAZZ: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; JAZZ: Speakers Bureau. Mufti:Cellectis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Garcia-Manero:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Buckstein:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria; Acceleron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Díez-Campelo:Celgene Corporation: 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. Sekeres:Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. See:Celgene Corporation: Other: Contractor. Tsai:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Risueño:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties: Named in Celgene patent filings related to predictive patient response biomarkers in hematological malignancies. Ma:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schwickart:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rampersad:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Laadem:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Menezes:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. MacBeth:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Linde:Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership; Abbott Laboratories, Inc.: Equity Ownership; Fibrogen, Inc.: Equity Ownership. Reynolds:Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. List:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Fenaux:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Luspatercept is an investigational therapy that is not approved for any use in any country. Luspatercept is currently being evaluated for potential use in patients with anemia due to myelodysplastic syndromes, beta-thalassemia, or myelofibrosis.

Description: Introduction: Despite recent advances in available treatments, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) remains an incurable disease, and the vast majority of patients (pts) will relapse and require additional lines of therapy. Thus, prolonging remission is a key treatment goal in CLL. This multicenter, randomized, double-blinded phase 3 trial (NCT00774345) was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide (LEN) vs placebo (PBO) as maintenance therapy in previously treated CLL pts. Methods: Eligible CLL pts must have had at least a partial response (PR) to second-line therapy. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive either LEN 2.5 mg once daily on days 1-28 of the first 28-day cycle, or matching PBO. If LEN was well tolerated, escalation to 5 mg/day was permitted from cycle 2, and further escalation to 10 mg/day at cycle 7 and thereafter. Pts were stratified by their response at the end of second-line therapy (PR, nodular PR, complete response [CR], or CR with incomplete bone marrow recovery; vs minimal residual disease [MRD]-negative CR by flow cytometry); age (≤ 70 vs 〉 70 years); and presence of at least one of the following poor prognostic factors: del(11q), del(17p), unmutated IGHV, or b2M 〉 0.4 mg/L (Yes vs No vs Unknown). Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS; IRAC assessed) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included: safety, tumor response, duration of response, second PFS (PFS2, time from randomization to second disease progression or death), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Results: Overall, 314 pts were enrolled (LEN, n = 160; PBO, n = 154). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment arms: median age was 63 years (range 37-82) and 63 years (range 37-84), 71.9% and 72.1% were male, 9.4% and 11.7% had MRD-negative CR to second-line treatment, and 47.5% and 47.4% had at least one poor prognostic factor, in the LEN and PBO arms, respectively. On review of the primary analysis, 30 Sept 2015 data cutoff, the required number of progression events to complete the co-primary analysis had occurred, and the data monitoring committee recommended that the study be unblinded. Median follow-up time was 31.5 months, and the median PFS was significantly longer for LEN vs PBO: 33.9 vs 9.2 months, respectively (HR 0.40 [95% CI 0.29, 0.55]; P 〈 0.001). At the time of the analysis there were 86 deaths and there was no significant difference in the OS (HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.63, 1.48]; P = 0.856). Subsequent CLL therapy was received by 35.7% of pts in the LEN arm and 58.4% of pts in the PBO arm, of these pts 16% in the LEN arm and 20% in the PBO arm were treated with a BTK or PI3K inhibitor. Median PFS2 was significantly longer for LEN vs PBO: 57.5 vs 32.7 months, respectively (HR 0.46 [95% CI 0.29, 0.70]; P

Description: Introduction Relapsed and refractory (rel/ref) CLL patients have a poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. The oral immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide has shown single-agent activity in untreated and rel/ref CLL patients, including patients with TP53 deleted/mutated CLL, which is associated with poor outcomes in response to chemotherapy. Lenalidomide targets the microenvironment to restore functional immunity to drive the elimination of leukemic cells. Here we report the efficacy of lenalidomide monotherapy in high-risk rel/ref CLL patients. Methods This phase 2, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, adaptive-design study evaluated the safety and efficacy of lenalidomide in rel/ref CLL. Patients had active disease per iwCLL guidelines and received ≥1 prior line of therapy, including purine-analogs or bendamustine. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral lenalidomide at a starting dose of 5, 10, or 15 mg daily at their initial 28-day cycle, followed by intra-patient dose escalation in 5-mg increments every 28 days, up to 25 mg/day as tolerated. Samples to determine genetic status were collected at entry and analyzed centrally at Ulm University. Results A total of 104 patients were enrolled; 103 patients were dosed and median age was 64.0 (32-81). Del(17p) and TP53 mutation were found in 23/93 (25%) and 36/96 (38%) patients, respectively; 20 patients with TP53 mutation did not have del(17p). Del(17p) patients were more likely to have TP53 mutation (77% vs. 26%), age 〉65 years (64% vs. 43%), high risk/Binet C (64% vs. 33%), and platelet count 65 years (67% vs. 38%), high risk/Binet C (53% vs. 33%), and platelet count 4 mg/dL), age (

Description: Abstract 1376 Introduction: Patients who relapse after fludarabine-based treatments have poor prognosis. These patients have deteriorating immune functions with high infection rates resulting from progressing disease complicated further by ineffective and often immunosuppressive therapies. Two phase II studies in patients with relapsed or refractory (rel/ref) CLL at starting doses of 10 mg or 25 mg daily of lenalidomide (Len) demonstrated promising responses. A phase II/III study was initiated to assess Len 10 mg/d vs 25 mg/d given continuously for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Four cases of serious tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prompted an independent data monitoring committee to amend the protocol into a phase I trial (de Parseval et al., JCO 2007) Here we present results from this amended study. Methods: Eligible patients had rel/ref CLL, received prior treatment with an alkylating agent and fludarabine, and progressed during or ≤ 12 months after completing fludarabine-based treatment. Primary objective was to determine whether Len 2.5 mg was a safe starting dose and the maximum tolerated dose escalation level (MTDEL). Prophylaxis with allopurinol and hydration were employed as part of an aggressive monitoring plan for TLS prevention. All patients initiated Len at 2.5 mg/d with subsequent dose escalation to 5 mg/d after 28 days with further dose escalations in 5 mg increments performed every 28 days until MTDEL was defined, or the maximum targeted 20 mg/d dose level attained. The first 6 patients at 10, 15 and 20 mg/d dose levels were considered a cohort and could not escalate beyond that dose level for the duration of treatment. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: The redesigned phase I study enrolled 52 patients with a median age of 65 years (range, 37–80) and bulky disease (〉 5 cm) in 70%. Cytogenetic data was available for 46 patients, of whom 22 (48%) had high-risk disease: 8 (17%) had del(17p), 12 (26%) had del(11q), 2 had both. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 4 prior therapies (range, 1–14); 54% were fludarabine refractory (no-response/relapse ≤ 6 mo), 42% had prior FCR or PCR and 21% had prior alemtuzumab. The TLS prevention strategy resulted in only 2 (3.8%) cases of TLS, both observed at 2.5 mg/d (1 patient with Gr.2 and another with lab TLS). Gr.3/4 tumor flare occurred in 5 (9.6%) patients and was managed with NSAIDs or low-dose steroids. The most common Gr.3/4 adverse events (AEs) included neutropenia (65%) and thrombocytopenia (33%). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 4 (8%) patients. Gr.3/4 infections were observed in 21 (40%) patients; 10 (19%) patients developed pneumonia and 3 developed sepsis; 2 cases of sepsis-related death at day 37 and 94 of therapy were also noted but deemed unrelated to study drug by the investigators. Reasons for study discontinuation included disease progression (37%), AEs (29%), consent withdrawal (15%), death (4%), and other reasons (10%). For 16 (31%) patients, 2.5 mg/d was the maximum dose reached and 22 (42%) patients were unable to escalate beyond 5 mg/d. Gr.4 neutropenia was the primary reason for delay in dose escalation. By intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, 6 patients (12%) had a partial response (NCI-WG 1996), 30 patients (58%) had stable disease and 13 patients (25%) progressed; 3 patients were non-evaluable. Median duration of treatment was 3.1 months (range, 0.07–18.4) and the median time to response was 4.3 months (range, 2.8–7.4). Responses were observed at 10 mg/d (n=3), at 15 mg/d (n=1), and at 20 mg/d (n=2); Median PFS (ITT) was 5.5 months and median PFS for responders was 12 months. Three patients still remain on therapy. Conclusion: We conclude that a Len starting dose of 2.5 mg/d appears safe, feasible and can be safely titrated to 20 mg/d (maximum intended dose). The MTDEL was not reached at 20 mg/d. Based on the response rate reported in this study, a higher starting dose, such as previously reported by Chanan-Khan et al (JCO 2006) and Ferrajoli et al (Blood 2008), may be needed to achieve clinical efficacy, particularly for patients with high-risk disease. Adequate TLS prophylaxis and monitoring allows for higher starting doses to be investigated. To identify a safe and clinically active starting dose, the CLL-009 study is evaluating Len at starting doses of 5 mg/d, 10 mg/d, and 15 mg/d in the setting of rel/ref CLL. Disclosures: Wendtner: Celgene, BayerSchering, Roche, Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Off Label Use: off-label use of lenalidomide. Hillmen:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer Schering: Consultancy. Mahadevan:Pfizer, millenium, Amgen: Honoraria. Stilgenbauer:Roche, Bayer, Celgene, GSK, Amgen, Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Frankfurt:Bayer, Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kimby:Roche, Bayer-Schering, Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, lecturer. Gobbi:Novartis, Jansen Cilag, Roche, Celgene, Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hurd:Celgene: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ferrajoli:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Shah:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene: Employment. Moutouh de Parseval:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Description: Introduction: Lower-risk MDS is characterized by anemia and ineffective erythropoiesis leading to RBC transfusion dependence. Effective treatment for anemia remains an unmet medical need. Patients with MDS may also experience additional cytopenias that may complicate treatment and contribute to infections and bleeding events. Here, we report hematologic improvement (HI) outcomes for patients in the MEDALIST trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631070), a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy and safety of luspatercept, a first-in-class erythroid maturation agent that binds select TGF-β superfamily ligands to reduce aberrant Smad2/3 signaling and enhance late-stage erythropoiesis. Methods: Eligible patients in the MEDALIST trial were adults with anemia due to Very low-, Low-, or Intermediate-risk MDS with RS according to the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System; were refractory, intolerant, or ineligible to receive erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs); and required RBC transfusions. Patients received luspatercept (starting dose of 1.0 mg/kg and titration up to 1.75 mg/kg, if needed) or placebo subcutaneously every 3 weeks for ≥ 24 weeks. Platelet and neutrophil counts were assessed by the central laboratory. Secondary endpoints included HI-neutrophil (HI-N) and -platelet (HI-P) responses, using International Working Group 2006 criteria, over any consecutive 56-day period. Mean changes from baseline in platelets and neutrophils were also evaluated. Results*: A total of 94.8% patients in the luspatercept arm and 97.4% in the placebo arm had refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia and RS at baseline. Mean neutrophil and platelet counts at baseline for patients in the luspatercept arm were 2.8 x 109/L and 259 x 109/L, respectively, and in the placebo arm were 2.7 x 109/L and 252 x 109/L, respectively. Neutropenia (〈 1 x 109/L) was confirmed at baseline in 15 (9.8%) and 10 (13.2%) patients in the luspatercept and placebo arms, respectively. Fifty-one (33.3%) patients in the luspatercept arm and 22 (28.9%) in the placebo arm received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in combination with ESAs prior to randomization. A total of 8 (5.2%) and 6 (7.9%) patients receiving luspatercept and placebo, respectively, had baseline thrombocytopenia (〈 100 x 109/L); no patients received prior platelet transfusions. Fifteen (9.8%) and 10 (13.2%) patients in the luspatercept and placebo arms, respectively, were evaluable for HI-N (i.e. baseline neutrophils 〈 1 x 109/L); 3/15 (20%) of those receiving luspatercept and 1/10 (10%) of those receiving placebo achieved HI-N in Weeks 1-48. Among patients who were evaluable for HI-P (i.e. baseline platelets 〈 100 x 109/L), 5/8 (62.5%) of those receiving luspatercept and 2/6 (33%) of those receiving placebo achieved HI-P in Weeks 1-48 (Table). None of the luspatercept HI-P responders received platelet transfusions. Mean changes from baseline in neutrophils of 0.94 x 109/L with luspatercept and 0.04 x 109/L with placebo were observed at Week 15, with early increases reported for luspatercept by Day 8 (0.86 vs 0.08 x 109/L for placebo). Mean increases in neutrophils at Day 8 occurred in both luspatercept responders (by MEDALIST primary endpoint; 1.0 x 109/L) and non-responders (0.8 x 109/L). Mean changes from baseline in platelets of 29 x 109/L were observed with luspatercept and 0.9 x 109/L with placebo by Week 12, but early increases were observed with luspatercept by Day 8 (18 vs 3 x 109/L for placebo) and mean increases in platelets at Day 8 occurred in both luspatercept responders (21.4 x 109/L) and non-responders (16.5 x 109/L). No patients in either arm experienced grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent thrombocytopenia. Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was reported in 1 (0.7%) patient receiving luspatercept and 1 (1.3%) patient receiving placebo. Conclusions: Although only a minority of patients were evaluable for HI-P/HI-N response based on entry criteria for the study, luspatercept treatment resulted in a mean increase from baseline in platelet and neutrophil counts in most patients overall vs placebo, regardless of response status. These improvements were observed early following treatment initiation and then stabilized. Luspatercept did not contribute to the worsening of cytopenias vs placebo. *Data cutoff: May 8, 2018. Disclosures Garcia-Manero: Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Mufti:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Cellectis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Fenaux:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding. Buckstein:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Santini:Acceleron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria. Díez-Campelo:Celgene Corporation: 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. Finelli:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Sekeres:Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. List:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Laadem:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ito:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rampersad:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sinsimer:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Linde:Fibrogen, Inc.: Equity Ownership; Abbott Laboratories, Inc.: Equity Ownership; Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Platzbecker:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Komrokji:Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; DSI: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Luspatercept is an investigational therapy that is not approved for any use in any country. Luspatercept is currently being evaluated for potential use in patients with anemia due to myelodysplastic syndromes, beta-thalassemia, or myelofibrosis.

Description: Abstract 2859 Introduction: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who relapse following purine-analog or bendamustine-based treatments have a poor prognosis. These patients have limited therapeutic options and novel agents with alternative mechanisms of action are needed. In phase 1 and 2 trials, escalating dose regimens of the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide demonstrated promising activity with relapsed/refractory CLL. Of interest, the data indicate that superior efficacy might be achieved by a starting dose above 2.5 mg daily lenalidomide. A phase 2 trial (CLL-009 study) was developed to investigate the safety of different starting doses of lenalidomide followed by a step-wise dose escalation as tolerated in relapsed/refractory CLL. Methods: In this ongoing trial, eligible subjects with relapsed/refractory CLL who have received at least 1 prior treatment regimen are being enrolled. Subjects are randomized 1 :1 :1 to receive a double-blinded starting dose of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg oral lenalidomide on days 1–28 of each 28-day cycle. The primary objectives are to determine the safety and efficacy of the different lenalidomide starting doses of 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg daily, followed by an intra-patient escalation up to a maximum of 25 mg daily using a Bayesian approach. Based on individual patient tolerability, the daily lenalidomide dose can be escalated every 28 days by 5 mg increments. Dose reductions also occur in 5 mg increments; however, dose levels below 5 mg sequentially include 2.5 mg and 1.25 mg daily. Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis, comprised of oral hydration and allopurinol 300 mg/day is initiated at least 3 days prior to starting study drug and for a minimum of the first 3 treatment cycles. This adaptive design trial is considering joint efficacy and toxicity outcomes to stop randomization of less promising arms. Accrual to a starting dose arm will be stopped if unacceptable toxicities and/or high progression rate are observed in that arm. A total of 90 subjects will be enrolled in the study. Results: To date, 51 subjects with a median age of 63 years (range 39–78) have been enrolled. Subjects to date are primarily male (65%) and Caucasian (84%), and slightly more than half (53%) are ≥ 65 years old. Cytogenetic data is available for 42 subjects; 10 have del(11q), 8 have del(17p), and 24 have del(13q). Overall, 31 subjects had at least one cytogenetic deletion. Based on the Binet and Rai staging systems: 3 (6%), 10 (20%) and 15 (29%) of subjects are stage A, B and C, respectively; and, 6 (12%), 7 (14%) and 7 (14%) subjects are low, intermediate or high-risk disease, respectively. For 3 (6%) subjects the Binet/Rai staging is currently unknown. The most common hematological grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) thus far include neutropenia (41% of patients) and thrombocytopenia (24%). The most common non-hematological grade 3/4 AEs include fatigue (12%) and tumor flare (12%). Only 1 subject (2%) experienced tumor lysis syndrome of grade 1. Over half of the subjects (53%) remain on therapy; 24 (47%) subjects have discontinued treatment. The longest subject has completed 17 cycles, and remains on study medication. The most common reasons for study discontinuation include disease progression (n = 8) and AEs (n = 10). To date, 20 subjects (54% of eligible patients) have successfully dose escalated above their respective starting double blinded dose level, including 3, 3, 2 and 12 subjects undergoing 4, 3, 2, and 1 dose escalations, respectively. As 14 patients are still in the first cycle of the study, a total of 20 subjects have had no dose level reduction or escalations. The average duration of treatment is 4.34 cycles, and the median number of cycles is 3. Efficacy evaluations are completed monthly after 3 months of study drug treatment. By investigator assessment, 34 subjects have been evaluated to date, including 1 (3%) complete response, 12 (35%) partial response, 7 (21%) stable disease, 10 (29%) progressive disease and 4 (12%) not evaluable. Conclusion: The independent Data Monitoring Committee, as of March 24, 2011 (N=41), recommended that accrual into all three treatment arms should continue as planned, suggesting all three starting doses were tolerated. To date, the ORR is 38% (13/34 evaluable subjects), and 54% of subjects (20/37) have dose escalated at least once. In this relapsed/refractory CLL population lenalidomide appears active, and completion of accrual will hopefully demonstrate the appropriate starting dose. Disclosures: Wendtner: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: lenalidomide in cll. Goldberg:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bloor:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cymbalista:Roche: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Genzyme: Honoraria. Kipps:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbott Industries: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Igenica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Purse:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mei:Celgene: Employment.

Description: Introduction: Approximately two-thirds of patients with primary or post-essential thrombocythemia/polycythemia vera myelofibrosis (MF) have anemia, many of whom require red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. In this heavily transfused population there are severely limited treatment options; effective treatment for anemia in MF is a critically unmet medical need. Luspatercept is a first-in-class erythroid maturation agent which binds to select TGF-β superfamily ligands to reduce aberrant Smad2/3 signaling and enhance late-stage erythropoiesis. Here we report the interim results of the ongoing open-label, phase 2 trial evaluating luspatercept in patients with MF and anemia. Methods: Seventy-four patients with MF and anemia were enrolled, including 41 not receiving concomitant ruxolitinib at study entry who received either no RBC transfusions (n = 20; Cohort 1) or 2-4 RBC U/28 d in the 12 wks prior to treatment (n = 21; Cohort 2). Thirty-three enrolled patients were receiving a stable dose of ruxolitinib for at least 16 wks, of which 14 were not receiving RBC transfusions (Cohort 3A) and 19 were (Cohort 3B). Patients in Cohorts 3A and 3B received a median dose of ruxolitinib of 20 mg/d (range, 5-50 mg/d) for a median of 41 and 43 wks, respectively. Patients received luspatercept every 21 d at a starting dose of 1.0 mg/kg in doses escalating up to 1.75 mg/kg. The primary endpoint in patients not receiving transfusions was a hemoglobin (Hb) increase ≥ 1.5 g/L at every assessment from baseline for ≥ 12 consecutive wks, within the first 24 wks on study. In patients receiving RBC transfusions, the primary endpoint was RBC transfusion-independence (RBC-TI) for ≥ 12 consecutive wks, within the first 24 wks on study. Additional endpoints included proportion of patients achieving mean Hb increase ≥ 1.5 g/dL in Cohorts 1 and 3A, and ≥ 50% decrease in RBC transfusions (minimum 4 RBC U decrease from baseline) in Cohorts 2 and 3B, with both responses lasting ≥ 12 consecutive wks, within 24 wks of study entry. Intent-to-treat (ITT) data were analyzed as of May 10, 2019. Results: Median age was 71 y (range, 50-88 y) and 42 (57%) were male. Median interval from MF diagnosis to study entry was 3.3 y (range, 19 d-13.5 y). Seven patients were Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) intermediate-1, 58 were intermediate-2, and 8 were high risk. Median Hb concentration at study entry was 8.8 g/dL (range, 6.7-9.8 g/dL) for Cohort 1 and 8.6 g/dL (range, 6.7-9.1 g/dL) for Cohort 3A. Patients in Cohort 2 received a median of 2.7 RBC U/28 d (range, 1-5 U/28 d) and patients in Cohort 3B received a median of 2.3 RBC U/28 d (range, 2-4 U/28 d). Patients received a median of 8 cycles of luspatercept (range, 1-24 cycles). Efficacy data are displayed in the Table, per ITT data. Two of twenty (10%) and 3/14 (21%) patients in Cohorts 1 and 3A, respectively, achieved an absolute Hb increase ≥ 1.5 g/dL at every measurement from baseline over any consecutive 12 wks. Two of twenty-one (10%) and 6/19 (32%) patients in Cohorts 2 and 3B, respectively, achieved RBC-TI over any consecutive 12 wks. Median duration of Hb response was 20 wks (range, 12-27 wks) in Cohort 1 and 12 wks (range, 12-13 wks) in Cohort 3A. Median duration of RBC-TI was 23 wks (range, 16-31 wks) in Cohort 2 and 32 wks (range, 12-65 wks) in Cohort 3B. Three (15%) and 8 (57%) patients in Cohorts 1 and 3A, respectively, achieved a mean Hb increase of ≥ 1.5 g/dL. Eight (38%) and 10 (53%) patients in Cohorts 2 and 3B, respectively, achieved a ≥ 50% reduction in RBC transfusion burden from baseline. Ruxolitinib exposure remained stable throughout the 24-wk treatment period in both Cohorts 3A and 3B. There was no difference in spleen size between responders and non-responders. Four (5%) patients had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs). There were no treatment-related deaths. Treatment-related AEs occurring in ≥ 3% of patients were hypertension (11%), bone pain (8%), and diarrhea (4%). Seven (9%) patients had ≥ 1 AE resulting in treatment discontinuation; 23 (31%) remain on study. Conclusions: The initial results from this ongoing study suggest clinically significant activity of luspatercept in patients with MF-associated anemia, including those receiving concomitant ruxolitinib. A minority of AEs were grade 3-4 in severity, consistent with previous studies in MDS and beta-thalassemia. Disclosures Gerds: CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding. Vannucchi:Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Passamonti:Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Kremyanskaya:La Jolla: Consultancy; Incyte, Celgene, Constellation, Protagonist.: Research Funding. Gotlib:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Promedior: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kartos: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding. Ribrag:BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AZ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; argenX: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mead:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Harrison:Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; CTI: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Promedior: Honoraria; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AOP: Honoraria; Shire: Speakers Bureau. Mesa:Shire: Honoraria; Promedior: Research Funding; Genotech: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; LaJolla: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy; Galena Biopharma: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Incyte: Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Gale:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Laadem:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pariseau:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Gerike:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Linde:Abbott Laboratories, Inc.: Equity Ownership; Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership; Fibrogen, Inc.: Equity Ownership. Reynolds:Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Verstovsek:Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma Corp: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Pharma Essentia: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Ital Pharma: Research Funding; Protaganist Therapeutics: Research Funding; Constellation: Consultancy; Pragmatist: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Luspatercept is an investigational therapy that is not approved for any use in any country. Luspatercept is currently being evaluated for potential use in patients with anemia due to myelodysplastic syndromes, beta-thalassemia, or myelofibrosis.

Description: Introduction: MDS is associated with an erythroid maturation defect, characterized by ineffective erythropoiesis leading to anemia and RBC transfusion dependence. Treatment of anemia in lower-risk MDS remains an unmet medical need. Luspatercept is a first-in-class erythroid maturation agent which binds to select TGFβ superfamily ligands to reduce aberrant Smad2/3 signaling and enhance late-stage erythropoiesis (Suragani RN, et al. Nat Med. 2014;20:408-14). Preliminary clinical studies have shown promising activity in MDS (Platzbecker U, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2017;10:1338-47). We report the results of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of luspatercept in patients with anemia due to Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R)-defined Very low-, Low-, or Intermediate-risk MDS with RS who require RBC transfusions. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631070. Methods: Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years; had IPSS-R-defined Very low-, Low-, or Intermediate-risk MDS with RS according to the WHO 2016 criteria; were refractory, intolerant, or ineligible to receive erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs); and required RBC transfusions. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either luspatercept, at a starting dose level of 1.0 mg/kg with titration up to 1.75 mg/kg, if needed, or placebo, subcutaneously every 3 weeks for ≥ 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was RBC transfusion independence (RBC-TI) for ≥ 8 weeks between week 1 and week 24. A key secondary endpoint was RBC-TI for ≥ 12 weeks between week 1 and 24. Achievement of modified hematologic improvement-erythroid (mHI-E) response using IWG 2006 criteria was also assessed. Results: † A total of 229 patients were randomized and treated. Median age was 71 years (range 26-95), median time from diagnosis was 41.8 months (range 3-421), and 62.9% were male. Overall, patient baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. Patients received a median of 5 RBC units (range 1-20) transfused over 8 weeks during the 16 weeks prior to treatment (43.2% of patients had ≥ 6 RBC units/8 weeks, 27.9% had ≥ 4 to 〈 6 RBC units/8 weeks, and 28.8% had 〈 4 RBC units/8 weeks). At baseline, 138 (60.3%), 58 (25.3%), and 32 (14.0%) patients had serum erythropoietin levels 〈 200 IU/L, 200-500 IU/L, and 〉 500 IU/L, respectively. A total of 218 (95.2%) patients had previously received ESAs. Overall, 206 (90.0%) patients had an SF3B1 mutation. Of 153 patients receiving luspatercept, 58 (37.9%) achieved the primary endpoint of RBC-TI for ≥ 8 weeks compared with 10 of 76 patients (13.2%) receiving placebo (odds ratio [OR] 5.1, P 〈 0.0001). Of those receiving luspatercept, 43 of 153 (28.1%) achieved the key secondary endpoint of RBC-TI for ≥ 12 weeks (weeks 1-24) compared with 6 of 76 (7.9%) receiving placebo (OR 5.1, P = 0.0002). Patients receiving luspatercept were more likely to achieve an mHI-E response, defined as a reduction in transfusion of ≥ 4 RBC units/8 weeks or a mean hemoglobin increase of ≥ 1.5 g/dL/8 weeks in the absence of transfusions, compared with patients receiving placebo (52.9% vs 11.8% during weeks 1-24; P 〈 0.0001). The safety profile of luspatercept was consistent with that reported in the phase 2 PACE-MDS study (Platzbecker U, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2017;10:1338-47). Conclusions: Treatment with luspatercept resulted in a significantly reduced transfusion burden compared with placebo in patients with anemia due to IPSS-R-defined Very low-, Low-, or Intermediate-risk MDS with RS, who require RBC transfusions, and was generally well tolerated. P.F. and U.P. contributed equally to this abstract as lead co-authors. R.S.K. and A.F.L. contributed equally to this abstract as senior co-authors. † As of May 8, 2018, cutoff date. Disclosures Fenaux: Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Platzbecker:Celgene: Research Funding. Mufti:Celgene: Research Funding. Buckstein:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Santini:Otsuka: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Díez-Campelo:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Finelli:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ilhan:Alexion: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Sekeres:Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Falantes:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Giai:Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Selleslag:Kiadis Pharma: Other: Financial support for study-related issues. Jurcic:Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Germing:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Götze:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel aid ASH 2017; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; JAZZ Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Quesnel:Celyad: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria. Beyne-Rauzy:Novartis: Research Funding. Cluzeau:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Menarini: Consultancy; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Voso:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zeidan:Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria. Laadem:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Benzohra:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rampersad:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Linde:AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Abbott Laboratories: Equity Ownership; Fibrogen: Equity Ownership; Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sherman:Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Komrokji:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. List:Celgene: Research Funding.

Description: Abstract 3925 Introduction: CLL patients (pts) who relapse following purine-analog or bendamustine-based treatments have a poor prognosis. These pts have limited therapeutic options and novel agents with alternative mechanisms of action are needed. Several phase 1 and 2 trials in rel/ref CLL showed promising activity with escalating dose regimens of lenalidomide (LEN). In other phase II studies improved clinical responses to lenalidomide appeared to correlate with dose levels 〉 5mg/day. This phase 2 trial investigates the safety of LEN initiated at 3 different starting doses followed by a step-wise dose escalation as tolerated in rel/ref CLL. Methods: In this ongoing trial, eligible pts with rel/ref CLL who have received ≥ 1 prior treatment regimen containing purine-analog or bendamustine are being enrolled. The objectives of this study are to evaluate primarily the safety and secondarily the efficacy of different LEN dose regimens. Pts are randomized 1:1:1 to receive a double-blinded starting dose of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg oral LEN on days 1–28 of each 28-day cycle. In all 3 treatment arms, the dose is escalated by 5 mg increments every 28 days to reach a maximum dose of 25 mg/d, depending on tolerability. In instances of poor tolerability, dose reductions also occur in 5 mg steps. Pts are stratified by relapsed versus refractory status to their last purine-analog or bendamustine-based treatment regimen and according to age (〈 65 vs ≥ 65 years). Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis comprises of oral hydration and allopurinol 300 mg/day and is initiated ≥ 3 days prior to starting study drug and for a minimum of the first 3 treatment cycles. A total of 105 pts are planned for enrollment to the study. Per protocol, unblinded interim analyses were conducted by the independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) after 18 subjects completed 1 cycle and continue at 13-week intervals. Results: To date, 95 pts are enrolled at a median age of 64 years (range 32–81). Enrolled pts are primarily male (67%) and Caucasian (92%). Cytogenetic data are available for 73 pts; 21% have del(17p), 55% have del(13q), 25% have del(11q), and of 72 patients evaluable for trisomy 12, 11 patients (15%) tested positive. IGVH is unmutated in 77% of 77 evaluable pts and 44% of 84 evaluable pts are ZAP70-positive. Based on the Binet and Rai staging systems 9 (10%), 25 (26%) and 24 (25%) of subjects are stage A, B and C, respectively; 7 (7%), 12 (13%) and 16 (17%) subjects are low, intermediate or high-risk disease, respectively. For 2 (2%) subjects the Binet/Rai staging is currently unknown. Overall, 19 pts (20%) received prior bendamustine-containing treatment and 71 pts (75%) received prior fludarabine-based treatment. The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range 1–10). Most common hematological grade ≥ 3 AEs include neutropenia (62%) and thrombocytopenia (34%). At baseline, 19% of pts presented with grade 1–2 neutropenia. The most common non-hematological ≥ grade 3 AEs include pneumonia (13%), tumor flare (13%), and fatigue (11%). TLS was reported in 3 pts (3%): grade 1, 3, and 4. In total, 8 grade 5 events were reported, 3 of which were suspected to be related to LEN: 2 cases of pneumonia and 1 death for unknown cause. At the time of the cut-off, 59 pts (62%) have discontinued treatment. Most common reasons for treatment discontinuation include disease progression (n = 20) and AEs (n = 20). To date, 47 pts (49%) have dose escalated above their starting dose levels of which 12 patients escalated to the highest dose level (25 mg daily). 18 subjects have had no dose level reduction or escalations and 1 patient is still in the first cycle of the study. Average duration of treatment is 6.5 cycles, and median number of cycles is 4. Efficacy evaluations are completed monthly after 3 months of study drug treatment. At time of the data reporting, 5 pts were on study drug but did not reach the first assessment at cycle. For the 90 pts evaluable for response, the investigator's assessment indicates 2 pts (2%) reached CR, 36 (40%) achieved PR, 33 (37%) patients had SD, and 19 (21%) pts progressed. Conclusion: The independent DMC, as of 14 June, 2012 (N=95), recommended that accrual into all three treatment arms should continue as planned, suggesting all three starting doses were well tolerated. To date, the ORR is 42% and 49% of pts were dose escalated at least once. In this rel/ref CLL population LEN appears active, and completion of accrual will clarify the appropriate dose at which to initiate therapy. Disclosures: Wendtner: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Off Label Use: use of lenalidomie in relapsed/refractory CLL. Hallek:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hillmen:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Gregory:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kipps:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Purse:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mei:Celgene Corporation: Employment.