ALBERT

Description: Background: In standard risk APL, ATRA+ATO combinations (without CT) are at least as effective as classical ATRA + anthracycline based chemotherapy (CT) while being less myelosuppressive (Lo Coco, NEJM 2014, Burnett, Lancet Oncol, 2015). In high risk APL (WBC〉 10G/l), it is still unclear if CT can be avoided or greatly reduced, but addition of ATO to ATRA + CT reduces relapses (Powell, Blood 2010). In a randomized trial (APL2006 trial) in high-risk APL patients (pts) who received ATRA + CT induction treatment, we evaluated the addition of ATO to CT during consolidation. Methods: Between 2006 and 2015, newly diagnosed APL pts 10 G/L, after an induction of ATRA 45mg/m2/d until CR with Idarubicin (Ida) 12 mg/m2/dx3 and AraC 200mg/m2/dx7, were randomized for consolidation between CT and CT+ATO. The CT group (standard group) received a first consolidation with Ida 12 mg/m2/dx3 and AraC 200mg/m2/dx7, a second consolidation with Ida 9 mg/m2/dx3 and AraC 1g/m2/12h x4d, and 2-year maintenance with intermittent ATRA and continuous 6 MP + MTX. The CT+ATO group received the same treatment except that ATO 0.15 mg/Kg/d d1 -25 was added during both consolidation courses. After a first interim analysis in Sept 2010, based on 81 pts, AraC was deleted from consolidation cycles of the CT+ ATO group. The primary endpoint was EFS from CR achievement. Results: 211 pts 10 G/L were included (after the exclusion of 8 diagnostic errors) in 58 centers. 95.7% achieved CR, 3.3% had early death and 1% resistant leukemia. 193 pts were randomized for consolidation, 97 in the CT and 96 the CT+ ATO groups. Pre-treatment characteristics were well balanced between the 2 groups. 7 pts (3 CT vs 4 CT+ATO) had relapsed (5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) of 2.5% vs 3.9%; p= 0.39) and 9 pts had died in CR :7 (7.8%), 2 (5.1%), 0 (0%) in the CT, CT (with AraC) + ATO, CT (without AraC) + ATO groups respectively (p=0.04). Causes of death in CR were bleeding (n=5), infection (n=2), previous cancer relapse (n=2). One patient in the CT+ATO arm developed AML/MDS. 5-year OS was 93% vs 94% (p=0.56) and 5-year EFS was 89% vs 93% (p=0.47) in the CT and CT+ATO groups, respectively. Omission of AraC (after the amendment) in the CT+ATO group did not increase CIR (5 year CIR 5.3% with and 3.3% without AraC, p=0.57). In the CT, CT (with AraC) + ATO, CT (without AraC) + ATO groups respectively, median time to ANC〉1 G/L after consolidation 2 was 22, 25 and 19 days (p50G/l was 24, 26 and 20 days (p

Description: Background: Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 mutations (IDH1m) occur in 7-14% of AML patients (pts) and approximately 3-4% of MDS pts. Olutasidenib is a highly potent, selective small molecule inhibitor of IDH1m with the therapeutic potential to restore normal cellular differentiation. Azacitidine (AZA) has shown synergistic effects with IDHm inhibitors on releasing differentiation block in IDHm leukemia models in vitro. Methods: The Phase 1 study (NCT02719574) assessed the safety, PK/PD, and clinical activity of olutasidenib in patients with IDH1m AML or MDS. Eligibility criteria included: IDH1m AML or MDS [relapsed/refractory (R/R) or treatment naïve (TN) pts not eligible for or refusing standard therapy], adequate liver and renal function. There were no restrictions for concomitant non-anticancer medications. IDH1m variant allele frequency (VAF) and co-mutations were measured at baseline and during treatment. Available safety data are presented for all pts (AML/MDS); efficacy data are presented for AML pts only. Results: As of April 12, 2019, 32 pts had been treated with single agent (SA) olutasidenib and 46 pts with olutasidenib in combination (COMBO) with AZA; median time on treatment was 4.2 mo for SA (range: 27 mo); disease control (SD 〉13 mo) was observed in pts without an IWG-defined response. Of the 59 AML pts (23 SA; 36 COMBO) who were transfusion-dependent at baseline, 26 (11 [48%] SA; 15 [42%] COMBO) and 21 (9 [39%] SA; 12 [33%] COMBO) became transfusion-independent (seen in all response categories) during 28 and 56 days on treatment, respectively. For R/R AML pts, median survival was 8.7 mo for SA and 12.1 mo for COMBO; for TN AML pts, median survival was 8.8 mo for SA (n=4) and not reached for COMBO. For R/R and TN AML patients with available pre- and on-treatment samples, IDH1m clearance or significant reduction (VAF

Description: Background: Mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) occur in ~3% of individuals with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and have been associated with increased transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Ivosidenib (AG-120) is an oral, potent, targeted inhibitor of the mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 enzyme (mIDH1) and is approved in the US for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML with a susceptible IDH1 mutation in patients ≥75 years of age or who have comorbidities that preclude the use of intensive induction chemotherapy, and in adult patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML. The first-in-human, phase 1 dose escalation and expansion study of ivosidenib (NCT02074839) enrolled adults with mIDH1 advanced hematologic malignancies, including R/R MDS, and the study is ongoing. In the initial phase of the study (DiNardo et al. N Engl J Med 2018), the 12 patients with R/R MDS received 500 mg ivosidenib once daily and were characterized as follows: 75% were male, median age was 72.5 years (range 52-78), and 42% were ≥75 years of age; median number of prior therapies was 1 (range 1-3). Adverse events (AEs) of any grade, irrespective of causality, occurring in ≥20% of the 12 patients were diarrhea, fatigue, back pain, rash (n=4 each, 33.3%), anemia, urinary tract infection, decreased appetite, hypokalemia, arthralgia, dyspnea, pruritus, and hypotension (n=3 each, 25.0%). No AEs led to permanent discontinuation of treatment. Response was assessed according to International Working Group 2006 criteria for MDS. According to investigators, five of 12 patients achieved complete remission (CR) (41.7%; 95% CI 15.2%, 72.3%); median duration of CR was not estimable for these patients (95% CI 2.8 months, not estimable). Nine of 12 patients were transfusion independent for at least 56 days during study treatment. Mutation clearance was observed in one of the 5 CR patients. Here we report the design of a new sub-study of this trial, which is being undertaken to further assess the safety, tolerability, and clinical activity of treatment with ivosidenib in patients with R/R MDS. Methods: This sub-study is evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity of ivosidenib. Adults with R/R MDS with an IDH1 mutation will be enrolled in the MDS sub-study. These individuals must have R/R disease after treatment with standard agents indicated for MDS. Eligible patients must have a platelet count of ≥20,000/μL, and adequate hepatic function (total bilirubin ≤1.5 × upper limit of normal [ULN]; aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and alkaline phosphatase ≤3.0 × ULN) and renal function (serum creatinine ≤2.0 × ULN or creatinine clearance 〉40 mL/min). Additional key inclusion criteria are bone marrow blasts 〉5% and/or transfusion dependence. Ivosidenib is to be administered at a dose of 500 mg once daily orally on Days 1 to 28 of 28-day cycles. The addition of the MDS sub-study to this phase 1 clinical study in patients with hematological malignancies will provide additional insights into the use of ivosidenib for the treatment of mIDH1 R/R MDS. Disclosures Foran: Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. DiNardo:notable labs: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; medimmune: Honoraria; daiichi sankyo: Honoraria; abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; jazz: Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; syros: Honoraria. Watts:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Stein:Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma US, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De Botton:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Syros: Consultancy; Forma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Pierre Fabre: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fathi:Amphivena, Kite, Jazz, NewLink Genetics,: Honoraria; Agios, Astellas, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Takeda, Amphivena, Kite, Forty Seven,Trovagene, NewLink genetics, Jazz, Abbvie, and PTC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Stein:Stemline: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Stone:AbbVie, Actinium, Agios, Argenx, Arog, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Biolinerx, Celgene, Cornerstone Biopharma, Fujifilm, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Ono, Orsenix, Otsuka, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sumitomo, Trovagene: Consultancy; Argenx, Celgene, Takeda Oncology: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board/Committee: ; Novartis, Agios, Arog: Research Funding. Patel:France Foundation: Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Dava Oncology: Honoraria. Tallman:UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Daiichi-Sankyo: 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; 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; Cellerant: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Delta Fly Pharma: 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; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Tetraphase: 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; Biosight: Research Funding; Oncolyze: 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. Choe:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership; Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wang:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership; Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fan:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yen:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Oluyadi:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Winkler:Agios: Employment. Hickman:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Agresta:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Attar:Aprea Therapeutics: Employment; Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kantarjian:Astex: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Immunogen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Ivosidenib (AG-120) is an IDH1 inhibitor indicated for the treatment of AML with a susceptible IDH1 mutation as detected by an FDA-approved test in: 1) adult patients with newly-diagnosed AML who are more than 75 years old or who have comorbidities that preclude use of intensive induction chemotherapy and 2) adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML. It is being evaluated in clinical trials for mutant IDH1 advanced hematologic malignancies.

Description: Erlotinib, an inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), induces differentiation, cell-cycle arrest, and apoptosis of EGFR-negative myeloblasts of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), as well as in EGFR-negative cell lines representing these diseases (P39, KG-1, and HL 60). This off-target effect can be explained by inhibitory effects on JAK2. Apoptosis induction coupled to mitochondrial membrane permeabilization occurred independently from phenotypic differentiation. In apoptosis-sensitive AML cells, erlotinib caused a rapid (within less than 1 hour) nucleocytoplasmic translocation of nucleophosmin-1 (NPM-1) and p14ARF. Apoptosis-insensitive myeloblasts failed to manifest this translocation yet became sensitive to apoptosis induction by erlotinib when NPM-1 was depleted by RNA interference. Moreover, erlotinib reduced the growth of xenografted human AML cells in vivo. Erlotinib also killed CD34+ bone marrow blasts from MDS and AML patients while sparing normal CD34+ progenitors. This ex vivo therapeutic effect was once more associated with the nucleocytoplasmic translocation of NPM-1 and p14ARF. One patient afflicted with both MDS and non–small cell lung cancer manifested hematologic improvement in response to erlotinib. In summary, we here provide novel evidence in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo for the potential therapeutic efficacy of erlotinib in the treatment of high-risk MDS and AML.

Description: Background :AZA improves overall survival (OS) in higher risk MDS, but only 50-60% of the patients respond, and median OS with AZA is only 20-24 months. As OS improvement is obtained at modest response rates, OS rather than response should probably remain the primary endpoint for all combinations with AZA, requiring large phase III trials with significant follow up. On the other hand, combinations that do not increase response will likely not improve OS. We therefore tested, based on a "pick the winner" approach, AZA combinations with the HDAC inhibitor VPA, LEN or IDA to identify, based on response, the most promising combination with AZA in higher risk MDS, that could be subsequently compared with AZA alone in a larger phase III study. Methods : AZA-PLUS (#NCT01342692)was an adaptive two-stage phase II trial based on Jung design (Stat Med.2008;27:568) that randomly assigned higher-risk MDS, low blast count AML (20-30%) and CMML to: AZA (75 mg/m2/d d1-7 of 28-day cycles); AZA plus LEN (10 mg/d on d1-14); AZA plus VPA( 50 mg/kg/d on d1-7; 35 mg/kg/d in patients〉 60y) or AZA plus IDA (10 mg/m2on d1 for the first 9 cycles). The primary end point was response rate (RR, including CR, PR, marrow CR, based on IWG 2006) of the combination arms vs AZA alone. Given a 30% RR with AZA alone, we considered that a ≥45% RR would make combination(s) promising. Controlling for type I and type II errors at 0.15 and 0.20, 40 patients per arm were to be enrolled at each stage. Any experimental arms with RR lower than those observed in the AZA arm at the first stage should be stopped. At the second stage, any arm with 〉 6 more responses than AZA alone should be selected for further testing. Secondary endpoint were ORR (RR+ stable disease with HI (HI) and OS. Results : After inclusion of 40 pts/arm (first stage) all experimental arms had at least the same number of responses as the control arm and were continued in second stage. Overall, 322 pts were enrolled from 06/2011 to 07/2017: 81, 80, 80, 81 in the AZA, AZA+VPA, AZA+LEN and AZA+IDA arms, respectively. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced across arms. Median age was 74.6 y, 213 pts were male, IPSS was INT-2 in 54% and High in 46%. IPSS Karyotype was fav, int and poor in 40%, 26% and 34%, respectively. Pts received a median of 7 cycles and median follow-up was 15.1 months. Prevalence of trial discontinuation due to adverse events was 32%, 29%, 28% and 31% in the AZA , AZA+VPA , AZA+LEN and AZA+IDA arms, respectively (p=0.95). Rates of hospitalization during the first 6 cycles were 38%, 44.7% , 55.1%, 59.7% in the AZA, AZA +VPA, AZA+LEN and AZA+IDA arms, respectively (p=0.028), suggesting increased myelosuppression in the experimental arms, especially in the LEN and IDA arm. In the control arm, 29 responses (CR+PR+mCR) after 6 cycles were observed, with 29, 25 and 29 responses observed in AZA+VPA , AZA+LEN and AZA+IDA arms, respectively. Thus, no combination demonstrated benefit over AZA. The RR was estimated at 34.8% (18.6% CR, 3.1% PR, and 13.0% mCR) and the ORR after 6 cycles was 40.4%. The RR after 6 cycles (35.8% for AZA, 36.2% for AZA+VPA, 31.2% for AZA+LEN, and 35.8% for AZA+IDA) and the ORR after 6 cycles (41.9% for AZA; 41.2% for AZA+VPA, 40.0% for AZA+LEN and 38.3% for AZA+IDA) were close across study arms. By multivariate analysis, factors associated with better ORR were higher Hb level (p=0.05), low fibrinogen (p=0.008) and low LDH (p=0.01). 17 (5%) pts were bridged to allogeneic SCT: 6 on AZA, 5 on AZA+VPA, none in the AZA+LEN arm and 6 on AZA+IDA arm (p=0.03). At the reference date of July 2018, median EFS was 16.6 months for in AZA, 14.5 months for in AZA+VPA, 15.1 months for in AZA+LEN and 13.2 months for in AZA+IDA (p=0.74) (Fig A). Multivariable Cox model selected Hb level (p=0.02), presence of circulating blasts (p

Description: BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) including invasive candidiasis(IC), pulmonary invasive aspergillosis (IA) and other fungal species as mucor mycosis (IM), remain a major clinical problem in neutropenic patients receiving intensive chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) due to their high morbidity and mortality. DESIGN: We performed a prospective observational study on antifungal (AF) prophylaxis used in a prospective clinical trial of intensive chemotherapy within the Acute Leukemia French Association (ALFA 0702 study, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00932412). A total of 677 AML patients from 34 different centers were included, 45% were males, and median age was 46 years (18-60). Prognosis according to cytogenetics was favorable in 23% of patients, intermediate in 53% and unfavorable in 18%. All patients received daunorubicine and aracytine intensive induction chemotherapy. The trial protocol recommended posaconazole suspension as AF prophylaxis at the dose of 200 mg three times a day from day 4 after induction chemotherapy and until neutrophils recovery. Patients were considered evaluable for this study if they received posaconazole for a minimum duration of 7 days and not later than 10 days after the beginning of the induction chemotherapy. IFI were classified by the local investigators and were reviewed later by an independent expert according to the EORTC classification (possible, probable and proven), scanner images were requested for further investigations when needed. The objective of this study was to describe the IFI prophylaxis strategies used in the different centers, to calculate the cumulative incidence of IFI according to different strategies, and to evaluate the overall survival and IFI related mortality. RESULTS: Among the 677 patients, 383 (57%) received posaconazole as AF prophylaxis for a median duration of 25 days (7-253). Posaconazole was introduced after a median time of 3 days after the beginning of the chemotherapy. We distinguished 4 groups, Group 1: patients without any prophylaxis (n = 203, 30%), Group 2: posaconazole alone (n=241, 36%), Group 3: posaconazole plus other prophylaxis (n=142, 21%), and Group 4: patients receiving other prophylaxis (n= 91, 13%). Overall, there were 72 IA [34 (47%) possible, 38 (53%) probable/proven], 17 IC (all probable/proven) and 7 IM [1 possible, 6 probable/proven]. The median delay between posaconazole prophylaxis and IFI occurrence was 22 days (7-50) for IA, 18 days (15-60) for IC and 26 days (13-28) for IM compared to 10 days (3-180), 8 days (3-32) and 21 days (10-32) in case of other prophylaxis. The cumulative incidence of IFI was 2.4% at 10 days (IA: 2.4%, IC : 0%, IM : 0%), 11,2% at 30 days (IA: 8.4%, IC: 2%, IM: 0.7%), 14.2% at 60 days ( IA: 10.6%, IC : 2.5%, IM : 1%), and 14.2% at 100 days (IA:10.6%, IC : 2.5%, IM : 1%). When considering the prophylaxis groups, the cumulative incidence of probable/proven IA at day 60 was 8.37% for Group 1; 4.7% for Groups 2 and 3 combined and 3.3% for Group 4 (Figure 1). After a median follow-up of 27.5 months (0.4- 73.4), 418 patients are alive and 259 (38.3%) died with 5.4% from IFI. Concerning the overall survival, the results were analyzed according to the presence or absence of IFI and AF prophylaxis (Figure 2) we observed a better survival without any IFI whatever the AF prophylaxis was and in case of AF prophylaxis there was an improvement of 2-years survival after chemotherapy induction. Concerning the global mortality and the IFI related mortality, the results were analyzed according to the prophylactic groups and the timing of prophylaxis, the multivariate analysis showed the negative impact of 2 factors on the mortality at day 100: Unfavorable cytogenetics: HR= 3.34 (1-11.20) p=0.05 and presence of IFI: HR = 5.63 (2.62-12.08) p

Description: Background: For many years the ALFA Group has used high dose DNR, i.e 80 mg/m2/day for 3d as part of the induction regimen for untreated adult AML pts. As the equivalence of DNR and Ida is not known we conducted a phase III study to compare high dose DNR to Ida. We also tested the effect of IL2 for maintenance. Methods: Newly diagnosed AML, aged 50 to 70 years, were randomized to receive AraC 200 mg/m2/day IV x 7 d with either DNR: 80 mg/m2/d x 3 d (arm 1) or Ida: 12 mg/m2/d x 3 d (arm 2) or x 4 d (arm 3). Pts who failed could receive a salvage course with Mitoxantrone x 2 d and AraC1g/m2 12 hrs x 4d. Response was assessed after induction+/− salvage chemotherapy. CR pts received 2 consolidation courses according to the induction arm with DNR: 80 mg/m2 or Ida:12 mg/m2 for 1 day (first course) or 2 days (2nd course) and AraC:1g/m2/12 hrs x 4 days. Pts in CCR after the two consolidation courses were randomized to receive or not a maintenance immunotherapy with IL2: 5.106/m2 for 5 days monthly for12 months. Results: From 2001 to 2006, 468 pts were included (median age: 60 years). The 3 treatment arms were well matched for pretreatment characteristics. CR was achieved in 360/468 pts (77%): 109 (70%) pts arm 1, 129 (83%) arm 2, 122 (78%) arm 3 (p=0.02).70 pts, (45%) pts in the DNR arm reached CR after 1 course vs 97 (62%) and 90 (57%) in Ida arms (p= 0.006). Pts in Ida arms experienced more grade 3 or 4 mucositis (p=0.004) but no differences were observed between the 3 arms for duration of hospitalization, time to PMN or plts recovery, incidence of grade 3 or 4 infectious episodes and treatment related mortality. 3 year cumulative incidence of relapse was 69%, 63%, 62% resp in arms 1,2,3 (p=NS). 3 year EFS was 19%, 30%, 26% resp (p=0.06 for arm 1 vs arms 2 and 3). 3 year OS was 31%, 40% 41% resp in arms 1,2,3 (p=NS). Age (〈 or 〉60 years), sex, initial WBC counts, initial LDH (nl or 〉nl), DNR or Ida arms, need for a salvage course were not predictive for relapse, while 2yCIR was 43%, 64%, 77% among respectively fav, intermediate and unfav cytogenetic risk groups resp (p=0.0046). Of the 219 pts alive in CR after consolidations, 161 (73%) were randomized for maintenance. Only 22 of the 77 pts randomized for IL2 completed the 1 year treatment. 32 and 23 pts stopped IL2 resp because of relapse or intolerance. There were no differences in relapse or OS in both maintenance arms. Conclusion: Ida treatment even when compared to high doses of DNR yields higher CR rate and more CR after one course. This effect translated in slightly better EFS but not better CIR or OS. IL2 maintenance treatment at least as scheduled in this trial was difficult to apply and showed no impact on disease course.

Description: Abstract 843 Background: AZA prolongs survival in higher-risk MDS including patients (pts) with 20-29 % marrow blasts, now considered WHO-AML ( Lancet Onc, 2009). However, no large AML cohorts (especially with '30% marrow blasts) treated upfront with AZA have been reported. Methods: An AZA compassionate program (ATU) was initiated in France in Dec 2004 for higher risk MDS, and AML considered not candidates or refractory to intensive chemotherapy (IC). We retrospectively analyzed WHO AML pts having received at least 1 cycle of AZA in the 42 centers with complete pt reporting, excluding those previously treated by IC, allo SCT, low dose AraC or a hypomethylating agent. Results: 138 pts were included between Dec 2004 and Dec 2008; M/F: 86/52; median age 73 years (y) (range 31-87), 117 pts (85%) were 〉 65 y and 54 (40%) 〉75y. 65 pts (47%) had prior WHO MDS and 30 pts (22%) therapy related (tAML). 44 pts (32%) had 20-29% marrow blasts. Median WBC was 3.0 G/L [0.8-111.5]. Karyotype (MRC classification), was intermediate (int) in 60 pts,( including 38 normal (NK), and 7 isolated +8 ) adverse in 67 pts (including 42 -7/ del7q, 41 del5q/-5, 45 complex karyotype, two 3q26) and failed in 11 pts. With a median follow-up of 11.3 months, pts received a median of 4.5 AZA cycles (range 1-26). Treatment was according to FDA-EMEA approved schedule for MDS in 95 pts (69%) and a less intensive schedule (5d/4w, or 10 G/L (32 pts in our cohort) carried poorer prognosis ( 1 y OS of 27% vs 44% ,p=0.01); NK had better OS (1-y OS: 66%) than adverse cytogenetics (1-y OS: 30%, p=0.01) but also other “intermediate-risk” abnormalities (1-y OS: 30%, p=0.03). Marrow blast % did not influence OS and survival, whatever the cut off chosen. In particular, pts with 20-29 % marrow blasts had 22% AML response and 1 y OS of 50%, compared to 21% and 1 y OS of 35%, respectively, in pts with 〉30% marrow blasts (p=NS and NS, respectively). Prior MDS also had no influence on survival. Overall, 33 pts required hospitalization during treatment, mainly for neutropenic fever. A landmark analysis at the time of evaluation showed that achievement of CR, CRi or PR was associated with improved OS (1y-OS 55% vs 31%,p=0.007). In pts with no AML-IWG response, however, achievement of HI also predicted better survival: 1 y-OS 55% vs 19 %, p=0.02. In the 54 pts older than 75 y (ie pts generally considered unfit for IC), 12 (22%) had AML response including CR in 9 (17%) and 3 PR (5%). 1y-OS was 41 % vs 38% for younger pts (p=NS). Hospitalisation was needed in 31% of them vs 32% in younger pts (p=NS). Conclusion: In this untreated cohort of generally older AML pts considered non candidates for intensive chemotherapy, response rate was 21% and 1 y OS 40%. Higher WBC counts and adverse karyotype were associated with poorer OS, but marrow blast %, whatever the threshold chosen, had no influence on outcome. Age above 75 y was associated with similar response and 1y OS. Finally, pts without AML IWG responses but with improved cytopenias also appeared to have improved survival. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Azacytidine is approved by FDA and EMEA in the treatment of high risk MDS and AML up to 30% of bone marrow blast.. Fenaux:CELGENE: Research Funding; AMGEN: Research Funding.