ALBERT

Description: Background: Disease relapse remains the primary cause of mortality following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). One important mechanism of disease relapse in this setting is failure of the graft-versus-tumor (GvT) effect, and the PD-1/PD-L1 axis may diminish GvT after alloSCT. We hypothesized that PD-1/PD-L1 interactions prevent donor-derived T cells from eliminating malignant cells expressing minor histocompatibility antigens, and that blocking PD-1/PD-L1 interactions with the anti-PD-1 antibody, pembrolizumab (pem), might restore GvT and induce clinical responses in patients (pts) with relapsed hematologic malignancies following alloHCT. However, PD-1 blockade therapy has been associated with severe graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in murine models, and GVHD has been reported in humans treated with anti-PD-1 therapy after alloHCT. Thus, we developed a prospective clinical study to test the tolerability and preliminary efficacy of pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed leukemia/lymphoma after alloSCT. Methods: Pts with AML, MDS, or B cell lymphomas with biopsy-proven recurrence after alloSCT were eligible, as long as no active acute GVHD 〉 grade 1 or chronic GVHD was present. Pts were treated with pem 200 mg IV q3 weeks for up to 2 years, provided that neither intolerable side-effects nor disease progression occurred. Pem could be delayed for treatment-limiting toxicities (TLT), defined as immune-related adverse events (irAEs) not meeting criteria for a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). DLT was defined as the development of grade 3 or 4 acute GVHD/irAE, any unexpected grade 〉 2 toxicity related to pem, or development of 〉 grade 2 vital organ dysfunction secondary to an irAE within 90 days of pem initiation. A two-stage mini-max design was chosen, with an early stopping rule for DLT after the first 11 patients were enrolled. Results: 11 pts (7 male, 4 female), mean age 49.5 yrs (range, 27-62 yrs) have been enrolled. 8 pts had AML and 3 had lymphoma (DLBCL - 2, cHL - 1). 6 pts had matched-related donors (MRD) and 5 pts had haploidentical/umbilical cord blood (haplo-cord) donors. Pts with MRD were conditioned with fludarabine, melphalan, and alemtuzumab, or fludarabine and busulfan. Pts with haplo-cord donors were conditioned with fludarabine, melphalan, and ATG. 5 pts had prior acute GVHD. Pts relapsed following alloHCT at a median of 453 days (range, 101-1021 days). A median of 2 cycles of pembrolizumab (range, 1-8) was administered. 3 pts are receiving ongoing treatment. 3 pts experienced a DLT due to an irAE (grade 3-4 pneumonitis 2 pts; grade 3 hyperthyroidism 1 pt), all of which occurred after 1-2 cycles of pem, and resolved after pem discontinuation and corticosteroid treatment. 1 pt experienced a TLT (grade 2 rash), but resumed pem treatment. Among all pts, irAEs of any grade occurred in 7 pts. 7 pts were evaluable for response. 3 pts (2 AML, 1 DLBCL) experienced progressive disease (PD), 2 pts (AML) had stable disease (SD), and 2 pts achieved CR (DLBCL, cHL). 1 pt with AML (myeloid sarcoma) in whom pem was discontinued for PD by PET/CT imaging had a concurrent tumor biopsy that revealed marked T cell infiltration and PD-L1 expression on a significant fraction of malignant myeloid cells, suggestive of possible inflammatory "pseudo-progression". 1 pt in CR developed therapy-related AML unrelated to pem. Notably, both patients with CR following pem had PD-L1 gene-amplified lymphomas by FISH, and diffuse PD-L1 protein expression on pre-treatment biopsies. Currently, 4 pts have died, all due to disease progression, and 7 are alive. A total of 26 patients are expected to be enrolled. Conclusions: Treatment with pem in the post-alloHCT disease relapse setting is feasible, but can induce early and severe irAEs, requiring vigilant monitoring. To date, objective responses were seen in 2/3 lymphoma patients treated with pem. In AML, pem may be less effective, where a best response of SD was observed in 2 pts, and possible "pseudo-progression" in a patient with myeloid sarcoma. This study continues to accrue pts, and correlative analyses are underway. To our knowledge, these are the first prospective data of PD-1 blockade therapy in the post-alloHCT setting. Disclosures Kline: iTeos: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding. Liu:BMS: Research Funding. Curran:Merck: Research Funding. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Smith:BMS: Consultancy; Portola: Honoraria. Bishop:Juneau Therapeutics: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; United Healthcare: Employment; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Speakers Bureau.

Description: Introduction: Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) advances in reduced intensity conditioning, donor identification, and supportive care have led to its increased use over the last few decades. HCT is a complex process that requires coordination at multiple levels, and there may be disparities in its utilization. To better understand these access disparities, we conducted a systematic review of studies that assessed barriers to referral and/or receipt of HCT. Additionally, we focused on a subgroup of older patients (aged ≥65 at transplant), who we hypothesized would be at higher risk for access barriers to HCT. Methods: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched for articles published in English from PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials between the database inception and January 12th, 2018. Inclusion criteria were: 1) clinical trials, observational, qualitative, cross-sectional, or mixed-method study designs; 2) study assessed barriers to HCT or factors associated with referral for or receipt of HCT (except for country-specific economic factors as these are less likely to be targetable), 3) included patients ≥18 years with cancer. Narrative review articles and abstracts without full text were excluded. Two authors independently reviewed all titles and abstracts (N=3,262) and assessed studies for full-text eligibility (N=153). A third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. Eighteen studies met eligibility criteria and an additional 5 studies (not identified on our search strategy) were included on review of the bibliographies. Literature on subgroup of patients aged ≥65 was also assessed. Results: Among the 23 studies included, 16 were published after 2010. Studies were retrospective (N=18; 14 from registry data), cross-sectional (N=4; 2 from registry data), and mixed-method (N=1), and primarily conducted in the US (N=21). Barriers were assessed at the patient level (N=19; sample size ranged from 350 to 38,420), healthcare professional level (N=3; 1 study assessed both patients and healthcare professionals), or country level (N=2). Fourteen studies included some information on age of the patients and 10 studies included some patients aged 60 and above. Seventeen studies only included patients with hematologic malignancies. Age was the most common barrier identified (N=16 out of 16 studies identified older age as a barrier). Fourteen studies showed that older age was associated with lower odds of referral for or receipt of HCT, and the remaining 2 studies provided descriptive data showing lower percentages of patients receiving HCT compared to the younger age groups. Table 1 shows other potential barriers or factors associated with lower referral for or receipt of HCT at the patient, disease, physician, and organizational levels. These included race (N=14 out of 16 studies identified non-white race as a barrier), insurance or financial capacity (N=11/12), comorbidity (N=8/9), gender (N=7/17; primarily female), disease status (N=5/5), patient preferences (N=5/5), time of diagnosis (N=5/5), cancer type (N=4/6), and socioeconomic status (N=4/5). Only one study evaluated factors associated with receipt of HCT in a subgroup of patients ≥65 years. Older age, female gender, and a diagnosis of leukemia other than acute myeloid leukemia were associated with lower odds of receiving HCT. Conclusions: There are limited prospective studies evaluating access barriers to HCT in adult patients with cancer. Older age is the most commonly reported barrier to both autologous and allogeneic HCT, although studies have not addressed specific mechanisms for this disparity. In addition, other potential barriers identified such as gender, race, insurance status, and comorbidity have not been well studied in the context of older age. While some barriers may be difficult to intervene upon (e.g. comorbidity, disease status, performance status), many are amenable to interventions (e.g. socioeconomic status, distance to transplant center, social support). With the increasing trend for HCT in older patients, there is a critical need for prospective studies that better describe these access barriers and their mechanisms in order to design future interventions to reduce disparities in HCT access. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Liesveld: Onconova: Other: DSMB; Abbvie: Honoraria. Aljitawi:Medpace: Consultancy; The University of Rochester Medical Center: Patents & Royalties: Pending patent related to decellularized Wharton's jelly matrix. Klepin:Genentech Inc: Consultancy. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Wildes:Janssen: Research Funding. Majhail:Incyte: Honoraria; Anthem, Inc.: Consultancy; Atara: Honoraria.

Description: Background: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), a humanized anti-CD22 antibody-calicheamicin conjugate, produced a superior response compared with standard of care (SOC) for relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the first 218 of 326 patients (pts) randomized (ITT218) in the INO-VATE trial (complete remission [CR], including CR with incomplete hematologic recovery [CRi], 80.7% [95% CI, 72-88] vs 29.4% [21-39]; 1-sided P

Description: Background: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) that progress to an accelerated phase (AP) or blast phase (BP) have poor outcomes with a median survival of 3 to 5 months. Approximately 20% of MPN-BP patients have a pathogenic mutation in IDH1 or IDH2. Ivosidenib and enasidenib, inhibitors of the IDH1 and IDH2 mutant enzymes respectively, provide a new treatment approach for high-risk IDH-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML). There are limited clinical trial data and real-world experience with IDH inhibitors in MPN-AP/BP. We hypothesized that patients with IDH-mutated MPN-AP/BP may benefit from IDH inhibitor therapy. We performed a single institution retrospective analysis of patients with AML arising from a prior chronic myeloid neoplasm treated with an IDH inhibitor and evaluated outcomes of the MPN-AP/BP patients. Methods: Retrospective chart review was done to identify patients with IDH1/2-mutated MPN AP/BP, AML arising from myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS-AML), or AML arising from CMML (CMML-AML), that were treated with ivosidenib or enasidenib from 1/1/2009-5/14/2019. Response was assessed using both the 2003 International Working Group AML (2003 IWG AML) criteria and 2017 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria. For the MPN-AP/BP patients, response was also assessed using the 2012 Post-MPN AML Consortium (2012 MPN-BP) criteria (Mascarenhas et al. Leuk Res 2012). Overall survival from initiation of IDH inhibitor therapy and adverse event data were collected. Results: There were 96 patients with IDH1 or IDH2 mutations identified by analysis of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) data. 15 of these patients underwent treatment with an IDH inhibitor and had an antecedent chronic myeloid neoplasm: 7 MPN-BP, 1 MPN-AP, 5 MDS-AML, and 2 CMML-AML. Median age was 69 years old with a median Charlson Comorbidity Index of 6. ELN risk criteria could be assessed in 13/15 patients; of those, 54% were adverse-risk. 13 IDH2 mutated patients received enasidenib as monotherapy (n=12) or combined with azacitidine (n=1). 2 IDH1-mutated patients received ivosidenib as monotherapy (n=1) or combined with azacitidine (n=1). Of the 8 MPN-AP/BP patients, 6 received IDH inhibitor therapy in the front-line setting. Of the 7 patients with MDS-AML or CMML-AML, only 2 patients received IDH inhibitor therapy in the frontline setting. The overall response rate (ORR) to IDH inhibitor therapy for the 15 patients was 40% using both the 2003 IWG AML criteria and the 2017 ELN criteria. In the 8 patients with MPN-AP/BP, the ORR was 37.5% using both the 2003 IWG AML response criteria and the 2017 ELN criteria and was 75% when using the 2012 MPN-BP response criteria (Table 1). Median overall survival was not reached for the 3 MPN-BP patients reclassified as responders using 2012 MPN-BP criteria with median follow-up at time of data lock being 431 days (range, 67-1218+). Median duration of IDH inhibitor therapy in the whole 15 patient cohort was 126 days (range, 14-1218+) and 258 days (14-1218+) for MPN-BP patients. Median follow-up at time of data lock was 151 days for all patients and 272 days for MPN-BP patients. Within the MPN-AP/BP cohort, 3 are still on therapy at this time, 2 had stopped due to progression of disease, and 3 had stopped due to an adverse event or clinical deterioration (Figure 1). Median overall survival for all patients after initiation of IDH inhibitor therapy was 235 days (Figure 2). Median survival for patients with MPN-AP/BP (n=8) was not reached compared to 193 days for the 7 patients with MDS-AML or CMML-AML. The incidence of Grade 3 or greater adverse events was similar to the known AE profile of these agents. NGS analysis at time of progression to AML/accelerated phase identified JAK2 and SRSF2 mutations as the most frequent co-mutations (Table 2). Conclusions: Treatment with IDH inhibitor therapy in IDH-mutated MPN-AP/BP patients holds promise as a means of inducing durable responses that extend beyond historical survival data for MPN-BP. In addition, utilization of the 2012 MPN-BP criteria to assess response in this patient population can provide better insight into the benefit of this treatment strategy. Our single institutional experience merits confirmation in a larger group of patients with IDH1/2-mutated MPN-AP/BP. Disclosures Liu: Agios: Honoraria; Novartis: Other: PI of clinical trial; Arog: Other: PI of clinical trial; Karyopharm: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Thirman:Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Up to Date: Honoraria; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Artz:Miltenyi: Research Funding. Larson:Celgene: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Contracts for clinical trials. Stock:Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Honoraria. Segal:Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Odenike:Agios: Research Funding; CTI/Baxalta: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Oncotherapy: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: We discuss the use of the IDH inhibitors ivosidenib and enasidenib in treatment of advanced-phase Ph-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms. Ivosidenib is currently approved for use in the frontline setting in IDH1-mutated AML patients 〉75 years old or with comorbidities precluding the use of intensive induction therapy. Ivosidenib is also approved in the relapsed/refractory setting for IDH1-mutated AML. Enasidenib is approved in the relapsed/refractory setting for IDH2-mutated AML.

Description: Background : CD47 is a transmembrane protein ubiquitously expressed in human cells. CD47 is overexpressed in various malignancies and is correlated with negative prognosis in AML and MDS (Chao et al. Curr Opin Immunol.2012; Majeti et al. Cell.2009). Interaction of CD47 with signal-regulatory protein alpha (SIRPα) expressed on macrophages inhibits phagocytosis (Kim et al. Leukemia.2012). CC-90002, a humanized anti-CD47 monoclonal antibody, blocks CD47/SIRPα interactions, thereby enabling macrophage-mediated killing of tumor cells. In preclinical studies, CC-90002 demonstrated antibody-mediated phagocytosis of several hematologic cancer cell lines, including AML cells. CC-90002 also demonstrated a rapid and substantial reduction in tumor burden in AML xenograft models. Herein, we report results from CC-90002-AML-001 evaluating CC-90002 in patients (pts) with R/R AML and high-risk MDS. Methods : In this phase I multicenter study (NCT02641002), CC-90002 was administered intravenously once/week for 4 weeks of each 42-day cycle during cycles 1−4 then once every 4 weeks during a maintenance phase of 28-day cycles. Pts were enrolled in cohorts of escalating dose levels using a modified 3+3 design. The primary objectives were to determine preliminary safety and tolerability, non-tolerated dose (NTD), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and/or recommended phase 2 dose. Secondary objectives were to measure preliminary efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and the presence and frequency of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs). Results: As of July 18, 2018, 24 pts with R/R AML and 4 pts with high-risk R/R MDS were enrolled. Pts received CC-90002 at 0.1 mg/kg (n=6), 0.3 mg/kg (n=6), 1 mg/kg (n=6), 2 mg/kg (n=4), and 4 mg/kg (n=6). Median age was 70 years (range, 28-85) and 16 (57%) were male. The most common AML subtypes were AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (n=9) and AML not otherwise specified (n=9). All 4 pts with MDS were classified as having refractory anemia with excess blasts-2 and high- or very high-risk disease per the Revised International Prognostic Index Scoring System. The median number of prior systemic anticancer regimens was 3 (range, 1-10), and 29% of pts had prior stem cell transplants. The median treatment duration was 6.9 weeks (range, 2-44). Four pts experienced a dose-limiting toxicity, consisting of grade 4 disseminated intravascular coagulation and grade 4 cerebral hemorrhage in 1 pt (0.1 mg/kg), grade 3 purpura in 1 pt (0.3 mg/kg), grade 4 congestive cardiac failure and grade 4 acute respiratory failure in 1 pt (1 mg/kg), and grade 4 sepsis in 1 pt (4 mg/kg). The most common (≥30%) any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were diarrhea (46%); thrombocytopenia (39%); febrile neutropenia and aspartate aminotransferase increased (36% each); and anemia, alanine aminotransferase increased, and cough (32% each). A total of 23 pts (82%) had serious TEAEs with febrile neutropenia (n=10), bacteremia (n=4), pneumonia (n=4), and general physical health deterioration (n=3) occurring in〉2 pts. No TEAEs led to dose reductions; however, 7 pts (25%) discontinued due to TEAEs. Overall, 82% of pts were dependent on red blood cell (RBC) transfusions and CC-90002 treatment did not interfere with continued RBC transfusion in pts on study. No pts experienced hemolysis, tumor lysis syndrome, or macrophage activation/cytokine release syndrome. Sixteen pts died during the study. The best overall response observed was stable disease in 2 pts with MDS. CC-90002 serum exposures appeared to increase with doses above 0.3−4.0 mg/kg and the terminal half-life ranged from 4.6−17.0 hours. Development of ADAs targeting CC-90002 occurred at all dose levels tested and the proportion of pts testing positive for ADAs in cycle 1 increased over time (4/27 pts at day 8, 6/25 pts at day 15, and 8/22 pts at day 22). ADAs continued to be present across different doses with increases in median serum ADA titers after cycle 1. No apparent dose-ADA relationship was observed. Conclusion: CC-90002 showed a lack of objective responses in pts with R/R AML and high-risk MDS. The MTD and NTD were not established. The CC-90002-AML-001 study was discontinued in dose escalation for lack of preliminary monotherapy activity and evidence of ADAs in most pts. CC-90002 in combination with rituximab is being explored in CD20+ NHL to enhance efficacy of CD47 blockade while reducing ADAs (CC-90002-ST-001; NCT02367196). Disclosures Zeidan: BeyondSpring: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Acceleron Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Medimmune/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; 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. DeAngelo:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy; Shire: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Blueprint: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Seet:University of California, Los Angeles: Employment. Tallman:Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellerant: Research Funding; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellerant: Research Funding; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Research Funding; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Research Funding. Wei:Celgene Corp.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Li:Celgene Corp.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hock:Celgene Corp.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Burgess:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties: Patent - CD47 antibodies and methods of use thereof; University of California: Other: Volunteer clinical faculty, without salary, Patents & Royalties: Patent - T315A and F317I mutations of BCR-ABL kinase domain. Hege:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties; Mersana Therapuetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arcus Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stock:Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research to Practice: Honoraria; UpToDate: Honoraria; Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Description: Introduction: Philadelphia chromosome-like acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph-like ALL) is a high-risk subtype characterized by kinase-activating alterations that are amenable to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The prevalence of Ph-like ALL increases with age and accounts for over 25% of patients with B-progenitor ALL between the ages of 21-39 years. However, the frequency, outcome and genetic basis of Ph-like ALL in adults over the age of 39 is unknown. The goals of this study were to define the prevalence of Ph-like ALL across the adult age spectrum, assess response to conventional chemotherapy, and define the genetic landscape of Ph-like ALL in adults. Methods: We studied 692 adults with B-ALL obtained from multiple groups including the Alliance (Cancer and Leukemia Group B), ECOG-ACRIN, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Northern Italy Leukemia Group, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, SWOG and UK NCRI. The cohort was divided into three age groups: 21-39 years (median age 28±6 years, n=333), 40-59 years (median age 47±6 years, n=246) and 60-79 years (median age 67±7 years, n=101). RNA samples were screened using a Taqman low density array (LDA) card that identifies patients with the Ph-like ALL gene signature, in addition to BCR-ABL1, ETV6-RUNX1, TCF3-PBX1, MLL-rearranged and ERG altered ALL. Cytogenetic data was also available for the majority of cases. High expression of CRLF2 was determined by the LDA card, and CRLF2 rearrangement (IGH-CRLF2 or P2RY8-CFRLF2) was confirmed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Total stranded transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq) using the Illumina platform was performed on 99 cases and sequencing data was analyzed using FusionCatcher and CICERO. Results: The overall prevalence of ETV6-RUNX1, TCF3-PBX1 and ERG ALL in adults was low (1.3%, 3.6% and 3.1%, respectively), whilst the prevalence of patients with BCR-ABL1, Ph-like and MLL-rearranged ALL was 20%, 24% and 14%, respectively. Ph-like ALL comprised 26% of patients between 21-39 years of age and 20% of patients aged 40-79. Patients with BCR-ABL1 and Ph-like ALL presented with higher white blood counts at diagnosis compared to non Ph-like ALL patients (57.7 and 65.0 vs 28.5 x 109/L). Patients with Ph-like ALL were also more likely to be male compared to patients with BCR-ABL1 and non Ph-like ALL, with 66% vs 50% and 50%, respectively(p

Description: Background: Selinexor, an exportin 1 (XPO1) inhibitor, has demonstrated anti-leukemic effect as a single agent. There are also data demonstrating synergistic killing of leukemia cells with the combination of selinexor with anthracyclines and/or DNA damaging agents. The HiDAC/Mito combination is an effective induction regimen for relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML patients with a reported overall response rate (ORR) of 55% at our institution. We hypothesize that adding selinexor to HiDAC/Mito is feasible and has synergistic anti-leukemic effects. Methods: We performed a phase I dose escalation trial with cohort expansion in patients with AML that combined increasing doses of selinexor with age-adjusted HiDAC/Mito (NCT02573363). The primary endpoint was to determine the maximum tolerated dose of selinexor when given in combination with HiDAC/Mito. Selinexor was given orally on days 2, 4, 9, and 11 during the induction phase of the study. HiDAC (1.5 to 3 gm/m2 depending on age, IV over 3 hours) followed immediately by Mito (20 to 30 mg/m2 IV over 1 hour) was administered on day 1 and 5. Initial selinexor dose was 60mg (~35mg/m2) followed by a dose escalation to a target level of 80mg (~50mg/m2). Patients who entered remission proceeded to stem cell transplantation (SCT) or consolidation chemotherapy with HiDAC/selinexor followed by maintenance therapy with weekly selinexor alone for up to one year. Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as any grade 3 or greater non-hematologic toxicity, except transient (56 days in the absence of disease. Once a dose level was declared tolerable, more patients could be enrolled at that level to provide additional safety, tolerability, and efficacy data. Results: As of July 2016, 12 patients had enrolled. Selinexor dose levels were 60mg (n=3) and 80mg (n=9). Median age = 61 (range 44 - 74). De novo AML = 5 (42%); secondary AML = 3 (25%), R/R AML = 4 (33%). Eight (67%) patients were previously untreated, 1 (8%) was beyond the first relapse, and 3 (25%) had primary refractory disease. Prior therapies included combination cytarabine with anthracycline, HiDAC, decitabine, and clinical trial agents. Molecular/genetic subgroup profiles by European Leukemia Net (ELN) criteria included favorable = 1 (8%), intermediate I = 5 (42%), intermediate II = 1 (8%), and adverse = 5 (42%). Only 10 patients are evaluable for safety and efficacy at the time of analysis. Myelosuppression was the most common side effect and was universal. Median and average times to count recovery for responding patients from day 1 were 38 and 47 days, respectively. Febrile neutropenia was observed in 8 patients (80%), compared to our historical experience of 64% for HiDAC/Mito alone. Other significant adverse events included line-associated thromboses (n=3), cardiac toxicity (n=3), cerebellar toxicity (n=1), arm cellulitis (n=1), and syncope (n=1). No DLTs were observed. 30 and 60-day induction mortality was 10% (1 patient with R/R AML died from progressive disease). Ten patients are evaluable for response: complete remission (CR) = 4 (40%), CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) = 1 (10%), partial remission (PR) = 1 (10%), and treatment failure (TF) = 4 (40%). Thus, the ORR is 60%. Of those who responded, 2 patients proceeded to consolidation, 1 underwent allo-SCT, and 3 are in preparation for allo-SCT. No response was achieved in patients with R/R AML. Bone marrow samples from screening and day 12 of treatment were used for biomarker analysis in three CR patients. A marked reduction in KI67, MYC, FLT3, KIT, and DNA damage response proteins was observed in the remaining tumor cells in the post-treatment samples. Staining for P53 showed an increase in nuclear staining intensity, which is consistent with the known effect of selinexor on tumor cells. Conclusions: The selinexor/HiDAC/Mito regimen is feasible and tolerable at selinexor doses up to 80mg/day or ~50 mg/m2/day twice weekly. It yields an ORR of 60% based on currently available data. The recommended phase II dose is 80mg of selinexor. Additional molecular correlative studies are evaluating patients' marrow and blood samples for markers that predict response and relapse. Disclosures Odenike: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Geron: Research Funding; Incyte: 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; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Algeta Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Suneisis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stock:Sigma-Tau: Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Royalties for a chapter in Up to Date: Patents & Royalties. Liu:Karyopharm: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding.

Description: Introduction: Guadecitabine (SGI-110) is a novel next-generation HMA administered as a small volume subcutaneous (SC) injection which results in extended decitabine exposure. Phase 2 studies have been conducted in TN-AML patients who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy using two different doses and schedules of guadecitabine. We report here a comparative efficacy and safety analysis of the 5-day and 10-day regimens. Methods: TN-AML patients who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy based on age (≥ 65 y), poor performance status (PS 2), comorbidities, or poor risk cytogenetics were enrolled in 2 separate treatment cohorts in the Phase 2 study. In the first cohort, patients were randomized (1:1) to either 60 mg/m2/d or 90 mg/m2/d on Days 1-5 (5-day regimen). In the second cohort, patients were treated with 60 mg/m2/d on Days 1-5 and Days 8-12 (10-day regimen) for up to 4 cycles, followed by 60 mg/m2/d Days 1-5 in subsequent cycles. Cycles were scheduled every 28 days for both regimes with dose reductions/delays allowed based on response and tolerability. Patients remained on treatment as long as they continued to benefit with no unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was the composite Complete Response (CRc): Complete Response (CR) + CR with incomplete platelet recovery (CRp) + CR with incomplete neutrophil recovery (CRi) using modified International Working Group (IWG) criteria (Cheson et al, 2003). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: There was no difference in efficacy or safety between 60 and 90 mg/m2/d on the 5-day regimen (Yee et al, European Hematology Association meeting 2014, S647), so data are reported here for the two doses combined on the 5-day cohort. There were 51 patients treated in the 5-day regimen cohort and 52 treated with the 10-day regimen. There was no statistically significant difference in patient characteristics between the 2 regimens; median age 77.9 vs. 77.3 years ; male 59% vs. 65%; PS 2 or higher 35% vs. 40%; median BM blasts 40.0% vs. 49.5%; poor risk cytogenetics 46% vs. 43% for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts, respectively. Follow up of the 10-day cohort patients was shorter as it started after completion of enrolment of the 5-day cohort. The median follow up was 25.7 and 12.4 months and median number of cycles was 5 (range 1-26) and 3 (range 1-13) for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts, respectively. There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy endpoint, CRc, between the 2 regimens (p=0.43). CRc was achieved in 29/51 patients (57%) on the 5-day regimen (19 CR, 3 CRp, and 7 CRi) and in 25/52 patients (48%) on the 10-day regimen (16 CR, 5 CRp, and 4 CRi). Median OS was 10.5 and 8.7 months for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts, respectively (p=0.89). The 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause mortality rates were not statistically significant between the two cohorts: 5.9%, 15.7%, and 21.6% on the 5-day regimen and 1.9%, 17.3%, and 28.8% on the 10-day regimen. The most common Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of relationship to guadecitabine were: febrile neutropenia 59% vs. 60%, thrombocytopenia 47% vs. 38%, neutropenia 39% vs. 33%, anemia 27% vs. 19%, pneumonia 24% vs. 27%; and sepsis 12% vs. 19%, for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts respectively, none of which was statistically significant. Fifteen patients remain on treatment (5 from the 5-day cohort and 10 from the 10-day cohort). Conclusions: Guadecitabine is clinically active with a good safety profile in TN-AML patients not candidates for intensive chemotherapy. Unlike in relapsed/refractory AML, where the 10-day regimen of guadecitabine showed a trend toward improved efficacy (Roboz et al, Annals of Oncology 25 Supplement 4, 2014), there was no significant difference in either efficacy or safety between the 5-day and 10-day regimens in newly diagnosed AML patients. Guadecitabine 60 mg/m2/d SC Days 1-5 is currently being investigated in an 800-patient multicenter randomized phase 3 study in TN-AML patients unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy (ASTRAL-1 Phase 3 clinical trial: ClinicalTrials.gov reference NCT02348489). Disclosures Kropf: Teva Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. O'Connell:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Astex: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Rizzieri:Teva: Other: ad board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: ad board, Speakers Bureau. Stock:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Savona:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenblat:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Berdeja:Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Array: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Wilson:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Lowder:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Taverna:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Issa:Janssen: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy.