ALBERT

Description: Abstract 255 Introduction: Standard treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) comprises one or two cycles of chemotherapy to induce complete remission (CR) followed by postremission treatment in order to prevent relapse of the disease (consolidation therapy). In 2003, we initiated a prospective multicenter randomized trial to investigate the impact of different consolidation strategies on long-term outcome in AML patients ≤ 60 years. Consolidation options comprised upfront allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo SCT) in aplasia after induction therapy, autologous SCT, and three cycles of standard high-dose-cytarabine-based consolidation. For patients receiving high-dose cytarabine, the main study aim was to evaluate the benefit of adding additional mitoxantrone and amsacrine to cytarabine consolidation. Design: From 2003 to 2009, 1182 patients (median age, 48 years; range 16–60 years) with untreated AML were randomly assigned at diagnosis to different consolidation strategies after classical 7+3 induction. According to the risk-adapted treatment strategy of the trial, cytogenetically or molecular intermediate-risk (IR) and adverse-risk (AR) patients should receive an allo SCT as consolidation treatment if an HLA-identical-sibling donor (IR) or HLA-matched related or unrelated donor (AR) was available. IR and AR patients with no available donor should receive autologous SCT. All favorable risk patients and patients with no available donor were scheduled for high-dose cytarabine based consolidation. Half of the patients were randomized for high dose cytarabine based consolidation. Half of the patients were randomized for high dose cytarabine alone while the other half received high dose cytarabine with the addition of amsacrine and mitoxantrone. Standard chemotherapy consisted of three cycles with high dose cytarabine (2 × 3 g/m2, day 1,3,5) whereas combined consolidation contained two cycles of MAC (cytarabine 2 × 1g/m2, day 1–6, mitoxantrone 10 mg/m2, day 4–6) plus one cycle of MAMAC (cytarabine 2 × 1 g/m2, day 1–5, amsacrine 100 mg/m2, day 1–5). In order to evaluate the effect of the two cytarabine based consolidation strategies, we determined overall survival (OS) and event free survival (EFS) using the method of Kaplan Meyer. Survival distributions were compared using the log rank test. Results: 1182 patients were randomized for further intervention (Arm A+B: n=582, 49.3%; Arm C+D: n=600, 50.7 %). Median follow-up was 41.4 months (95%-CI 39.3–43.6). A total number of 375 patients received allogeneic (n=322) or autologous SCT (n=53) and 807 patients were consolidated with cytarabine. Of these patients, 407 were randomized for cytarabine alone and 400were randomized to receive cytarabine plus mitoxantrone and amsacrine (MAC/MAC/MAMAC). Complete remission rate (CR) after second induction therapy was 59.1% (n=698). Between the four arms, there were no significant differences of the CR rates. Five-year OS of patients receiving high dose cytarabine alone was 47.1% (95%-CI 42.0–52.2%), for patients receiving MAC/MAMAC as consolidation therapy it was 46.8% (95%-CI 42.3–51.3%; p = 0.610). Three-year event free survival (EFS) was also not significant with 30.5% (95%-CI 26.6–34.4%) for patients receiving high dose cytarabine alone and 35.6% (95%-CI 31.7–39.5%; p = 0.059) for patients receiving MAC/MAMAC. Conclusions: According to our data, the addition of mitoxantrone and amsacrine to high dose cytarabine consolidation confers no benefit for treatment outcome in younger AML patients. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Description: Most patients with Hodgkin disease achieve durable remission with radiation therapy, combination chemotherapy, or both. However, patients who relapse after attaining complete remission with chemotherapy and those who have primary refractory disease have a poor outcome with conventional dose salvage chemoradiotherapy regimens. In the past 20 years, several clinical trials using high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) or chemoradiotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation have been reported, but only few of them focused on long term outcome, late toxicity and different treatment options after relapse. From March 1986 to August 2007, 107 patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s disease underwent HDCT with peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in our center. There were 64 males and 43 females with a median age of 31 years (range 17 – 63 years). For HDCT, 82 patients were treated with CBV (cyclophosphamide, etoposide, carmustine), while 20 patients received BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) or other regimens (n=5). For the entire group, the probabilities of freedom from progression (FFP), overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) after HDCT were 65%, 61%, and 53% at 10 years, respectively, after a median follow-up of 12.4 years (range, 0.15 – 20.3 years). Notably, no relapse occurred later than 48 months post transplant. Cox analyses identified duration of remission (≤12 versus 〉12 months) as well as disease status prior to transplantation (complete remission versus partial remission versus stable / refractory disease) as significant prognostic factors for FFP, EFS, and OS. Early mortality rate (≤100 days) declined from 17.1% to 8.3% after 1992 subsequent to introduction of hematopoietic growth factors for stem cell mobilization. Late mortality rate (〉100 days) was 30.8% (n=33), causes of death were Hodgkin’s disease (n=21), secondary malignancies (n=6), fibrosis of the lung (n=3), myocardial fibrosis (n=1), perforated sigmoid diverticulitis (n=1) and septicemia (n=1). The probability of secondary malignancies was 6.4% and 12.1% after 5 and 10 years, respectively. For the patients relapsing after HDCT (n=33), the median OS was 17.3% at 5 years. We found that patients with a remission time of 〉6 months after transplantation had a prolonged 5-year OS of 50.3% versus 0% (p=0.03) in patients with remission times of ≤6 months. To date, three of 33 patients live disease-free more than 5 years after relapse. These patients were treated with allogeneic transplantation (n=1), secondary HDCT (n=1) or conventional chemotherapy (n=1), suggesting that different treatment approaches have the potential to rescue individual patients although the overall outcome after HDCT failure is poor. In conclusion, HDCT can provide long-term disease control in patients who have failed primary therapy for Hodgkin’s disease. Although the results as a whole are encouraging for chemosensitive patients and have improved over time, new therapeutic strategies are needed to reduce toxicity of HDCT and improve the clinical outcome of those patients who relapse after HDCT.

Description: Introduction: FLT3-ITD mutations are among the most common molecular abnormalities in AML, occurring in ≈ 25% of pts. These driver mutations are associated with high leukemic burden and poor prognosis, eg, high risk of relapse, decreased response to salvage therapy, and shorter overall survival (OS). Pts with R/R FLT3-ITD AML have a worse prognosis and represent a population with high unmet medical need. Q is a once-daily, oral, highly potent and selective FLT3i shown in phase 2 trials to have promising single-agent antileukemic activity and a manageable safety profile. QuANTUM-R was the first global, phase 3, randomized controlled trial (NCT02039726) to show that an FLT3i prolonged OS compared with salvage chemotherapy (SC) in pts with R/R FLT3-ITD AML. Final efficacy and safety data from this pivotal phase 3 trial are reported. Methods: Pts aged ≥ 18 years with FLT3-ITD AML refractory to or relapsed (duration of first remission ≤ 6 mo) after standard AML therapy, w/wo hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) were randomized 2:1 to receive Q (60 mg [30-mg lead-in]) or 1 of 3 preselected investigator's choice (IC) SC: low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC); mitoxantrone, etoposide, and intermediate-dose cytarabine (MEC); or fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) with idarubicin (FLAG-IDA). Up to 2 cycles of MEC or FLAG-IDA were permitted; Q and LoDAC were given until lack of benefit, unacceptable toxicity, or HSCT. Prior therapy with midostaurin was allowed, but all other FLT3i were not. Pts receiving HSCT in the Q arm could resume Q after HSCT. Primary and secondary endpoints were OS and event-free survival (EFS), respectively. Sensitivity analyses for OS and EFS were conducted: (1) using the per-protocol set (randomized and treated patients without major protocol deviations), (2) censoring at HSCT, (3) censoring at the use of other postbaseline FLT3i (for OS only). Predefined subgroup analyses of OS were also performed. Exploratory endpoints included response rates, duration of CRc, and transplant rate. Results: 367 pts were randomized; 245 to Q and 122 to IC SC (LoDAC, n=29; MEC, n=40; FLAG-IDA, n=53). Four pts randomized to Q and 28 pts randomized to SC did not receive therapy. Median follow-up was 23.5 mo. Six pts were still on initial Q treatment at data cutoff vs 0 in the SC arm. Treatment groups were well balanced for baseline characteristics, including age, response to prior therapy, transplant history, and FLT3-ITD allelic burden. OS hazard ratio (HR) of Q relative to SC was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.58-0.98; stratified log-rank test, 1-sided P=0.0177). Median OS was 6.2 (95% CI, 5.3-7.2) vs 4.7 (95% CI, 4.0-5.5) mo, with an estimated 12-mo OS probability of 27% vs 20% in Q and SC arms, respectively. EFS HR was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.70-1.16; stratified log-rank test, 1-sided P=0.1071); median EFS was 6.0 (95% CI, 0.1-8.3) vs 3.7 (95% CI, 0.4-5.9) wk, respectively. Sensitivity analyses of OS and EFS all supported benefit of quizartinib compared with SC, as did OS analyses across subgroups, including varying allelic ratio, prior HSCT, AML risk score, and response to prior therapy (Tables 1 and 2, Figure). CRc was 48% (95% CI, 42%-55%) and 27% (95% CI, 19%-36%) in Q and SC arms (nominal P=0.0001), respectively. Duration of CRc was 12.1 (95% CI, 10.4-27.1) vs 5.0 (95% CI, 3.3-12.6) wk. Transplant rate was 32% and 12% in Q and SC arms (nominal P500 ms (grade 3) by central laboratory was 3% in the Q arm; no grade 4 QTcF occurred. Q-treated pts post-HSCT had a similar AE profile to those overall. Conclusions: This report confirms the survival benefit observed with single-agent Q compared with SC in pts with R/R FLT3-ITD AML and the favorable Q safety profile, providing evidence of meaningful clinical benefit in pts who have few options. These results are paradigm changing in the R/R FLT3-ITD AML treatment setting. Disclosures Cortes: Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding. Khaled:Juno: Other: Travel Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Perl:Arog: Consultancy; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy; NewLink Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ganguly:Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Russell:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Jazz Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kramer:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding. Dombret:Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Menarini: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria. Jonas:Accelerated Medical Diagnostics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Esanex: Research Funding; LP Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Kalobios: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Tolero: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Forma: Research Funding. Leung:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi: Research Funding. Mehta:Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria. Montesinos:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Radsak:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel grant; TEVA: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant; Gilead: Other: Travel grant; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant; Takeda: Consultancy. Arunachalam:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment. Holmes:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment. Kobayashi:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment. Namuyinga:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment. Ge:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment. Yver:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment. Zhang:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment.

Description: Abstract 144 Background: Sorafenib is a multi-kinase inhibitor with activity against several oncogenic kinases, which may play a role in the pathogenesis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In-vitro data and results from non-randomized clinical trials suggest that sorafenib might be an effective drug for the treatment of AML. So far, no randomized-controlled data are available for treatment of newly diagnosed AML patients up to the age of 60 years. We present the first results from the randomized placebo-controlled SORAML trial of the Study Alliance Leukemia (SAL). Patients and Methods: Between March 2009 and October 2011, 276 patients from 25 centers were enrolled in the SORAML trial (NCT00893373). The main eligibility criteria were: newly diagnosed AML, age from 18 to 60 years and suitability for intensive therapy. The treatment plan for all patients included two cycles of induction with DA (daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 days 3–5 plus cytarabine 100 mg/m2 cont. inf. days 1–7), followed by three cycles of high-dose cytarabine consolidation (3 g/m2 b.i.d. days 1, 3, 5). Patients without response after DA I received second induction with HAM (cytarabine 3 g/m2 b.i.d. days 1–3 plus mitoxantrone 10 mg/m2 days 3–5). Allogeneic stem cell transplantation was scheduled for all intermediate-risk patients in first complete remission with a family donor and for all high-risk patients with a matched donor. At study inclusion, patients were randomized to receive either sorafenib (800 mg/day) or placebo as add-on to standard treatment. Block randomization at a ratio of 1:1 was performed within cytogenetic and molecular risk strata, allocation was concealed and treatment was double blinded. Study medication was given on days 10–19 of DA I+II or HAM, from day 8 of each consolidation until 3 days before the start of the next consolidation and as maintenance for 12 months after the end of consolidation. The primary endpoint of the trial is event-free survival (EFS) with an event being defined as either failure to achieve a complete remission (CR) after induction, relapse or death. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), CR rate and incidence of adverse events (AE). We present the results of the planned interim analysis (intent to treat) after the occurrence of 50% of EFS events. The O'Brien/Fleming adjusted significance level was set at p=0.0052. Results: Out of 276 randomized patients, 264 were evaluable for EFS, 132 in each arm. Demographic and disease characteristics were equally distributed between the two arms; the FLT3-ITD incidence was 16%. The median cumulative dose of administered study medication was equal in both arms. The CR rates were 56% versus 60% in the placebo versus sorafenib arm (p=0.622). By the time of analysis, a total number of 100 events had occurred. After a median observation time of 18 months, the median EFS was 12.2 months in the placebo arm and was not reached in the sorafenib arm, corresponding to a 1-year EFS of 50% versus 64% (p=0.023). The median OS had not been reached in both arms, the 2-year OS was 66% versus 72% in placebo and sorafenib arms, respectively (p=0.367). The most common reported AEs CTC Grade ≥3 were infectious complications including fever and pneumonia, followed by bleeding events, cardiac and hepatic toxicity, hypertension, skin toxicity and headache. The risk for hepatic toxicity (relative risk 6.2, p=0.025) and bleeding events (relative risk 3.6, p=0.016) was significantly higher in the sorafenib arm while the incidence of all other AEs showed no significant differences. Conclusions: In younger AML patients, the addition of sorafenib to standard chemotherapy is feasible but associated with a higher risk of liver toxicity and bleeding events. Sorafenib treatment resulted in a marked EFS prolongation; this difference is not significant according to the adjusted significance level of this interim analysis. Results from the final analysis including post-hoc exploration of molecularly defined subgroups are necessary for drawing final conclusions on the efficacy of sorafenib. Disclosures: Off Label Use: sorafenib for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Serve:Bayer: Research Funding. Ehninger:Bayer: Research Funding.

Description: Clinical and pharmacokinetic data suggest that the effect of rituximab could be improved by prolonged exposure to the drug. To test for this hypothesis we performed a prospective randomized trial of rituximab maintenance therapy in patients with CD20+ B-cell Non-Hodgkins-Lymphoma. After completion of standard treatment patients were randomized to either observation or maintenance therapy with rituximab (375 mg/m2) every 3 months for 2 years. Patients after first line therapy as well as relapse patients were included in the study. Patients with aggressive lymphoma were enrolled if they had achieved a complete response (CR) after initial treatment. Patients with aggressive lymphoma with residual tumor mass were examined with positrone emission tomography (PET) and qualified for randomization if PET showed no signs of tumor activity. Patients with indolent lymphoma qualified for the study if at least a partial response (PR) was achieved. So far 162 patients (pts) with CD20+ B-cell Non-Hodgkins-Lymphoma were enrolled in this trial. Histological subtypes included diffuse large cell lymphoma (69 pts), follicular lymphoma (41 pts), mantle cell lymphoma (18 pts), primary mediastinal lymphoma (15 pts), marginal zone lymphoma (9 pts), Burkitt’s lymphoma (3 pts), immunocytoma (2 pts), primary intestinal lymphoma (1 pt), hairy cell leukemia (1 pt), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (1 pt) and unclassified B-cell lymphoma (2 pts). No severe adverse events were observed during rituximab maintenance therapy. We conclude that rituximab maintenance therapy is feasable, safe and well tolerated in patients with CD20+ B-cell Non-Hodgkins-Lymphoma. Results including event free survival and overall survival for the observation group and for the maintenance therapy group will be presented.

Description: Abstract 3700 Background: Clinical and pharmacokinetic data suggest that the effect of rituximab could be improved by prolonged exposure to the drug. To test for this hypothesis we performed a prospective randomized trial of rituximab maintenance therapy versus observation in patients (pts) with CD20+ B-cell Non-Hodgkin-Lymphoma. Methods: After completion of standard treatment, pts with CD20+ B-cell lymphoma were randomized to either observation or maintenance therapy with rituximab (375 mg/m2) administered every 3 months for 2 years. Both pts after first line therapy and pts after relapse treatment were included in the study. Pts with aggressive lymphoma were enrolled if they had achieved a complete response (CR) after initial treatment. Pts with aggressive lymphoma with residual tumor mass underwent positron emission tomography (PET) and qualified for randomization if this examination showed no signs of tumor activity. Pts with indolent lymphoma were eligible for the study if at least a partial response (PR) was achieved. Primary endpoint of the study was progression free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) and response to treatment. Differences between PFS and OS were analysed using the logrank test and the proportional hazard model of Cox. TTP was analyzed using a competing risk model with death as competing event. Results: 326 pts were included in the trial. Complete data sets of 294 pts were available for analysis on an intention-to-treat basis. We here report on the subset of 145 patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). 73 pts were randomized to the treatment group and 72 pts to the observation group. 77 (53%) pts were male and 68 (47%) female, with no significant gender differences between treatment and observation groups (p=0.74, Fisher's exact test). The median age was 58.6 years. 130 pts had received one previous therapy, 12 pts two, and two pts three previous lines of therapy. At study entry, 116 pts were in CR, 15 pts in unconfirmed CR and 14 pts in PR. Age, sex, number of previous therapies and remission status were well balanced between the treatment and the observation group (p≥0.48). After a median follow up of 30 months, PFS was excellent with 91% in the treatment group and 86% in the observation group (p=0.38). There was no difference in OS between the two groups. In a multivariate Cox model, OS and PFS were not different between men and women. The estimated hazard ratio of female vs. male was HR(F:M)=0.90 (p=0.90) for OS and HR(F:M)=0.49 (p=0.20) for PFS. However, interestingly there was a significant interaction (p=0.02) between therapy group and gender in regards to PFS with significant more events in men than in women in the observation group (HR(F:M) = 0.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) =(0.02, 1.00)), and no differences between men and women in the treatment group (HR(F:M) = 2.71; 95%CI=(0.50,14.9)). Conclusion: In this study, rituximab maintenance therapy did not improve PFS or OS in patients with DLBCL in general. Contrary to the results of the CORAL trial, there was no significant difference in PFS between women and men in the treatment group. However, in male patients a significant better PFS was found in the treatment group compared to the observation group (HR=0.21; p=0.03), suggesting a benefit of rituximab maintenance therapy for male patients with DLBCL. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Description: Abstract 411 Background: LDAC is an established treatment option for patients (pts) with AML considered ineligible for intensive remission induction treatment. However, the outlook for pts who receive LDAC remains unsatisfactory, and novel therapeutic strategies are needed to improve clinical outcome in these pts. Plk1 plays a key role in mitosis and cell cycle progression and is an attractive target for novel therapeutic approaches in cancer. Volasertib (V) is a first-in-class, selective and potent cell cycle kinase inhibitor that induces mitotic arrest and apoptosis by targeting Plks. The phase I part of this trial determined the maximum tolerated dose of V in combination with LDAC (V + LDAC) to be 350 mg and demonstrated antileukemic activity of V and V + LDAC in pts with relapsed/refractory AML ineligible for intensive therapy (Bug et al, ASH 2010 and 2011). Here we present preliminary phase II data for the randomized comparison of V + LDAC vs LDAC in pts with newly diagnosed AML ineligible for intensive treatment. Methods: In the phase II part of this open-label study, eligible pts were randomized to receive V (350 mg 1-hr intravenously, days 1, 15 Q4W) + LDAC (20 mg bid subcutaneously, days 1–10 Q4W), or LDAC alone until progression/relapse or intolerance. The primary endpoint was objective response (complete remission [CR] or CR with incomplete blood count recovery [CRi]); secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), safety and pharmacokinetics (PK). Results: 87 pts were treated with V + LDAC (n=42) or LDAC (n=45). Pt characteristics (V + LDAC/LDAC) were largely balanced: median age, 75/76 yrs; secondary AML, 40.5%/64.4%; adverse cytogenetic group, 35.7%/33.3%. At time of analysis (February 22 2012) 15 pts were still on treatment (12 with V + LDAC). Pts received a median (range) of 2 (1–12) cycles of V + LDAC and 2 (1–11) cycles with LDAC. A significantly greater proportion of pts who received V + LDAC achieved a CR or CRi compared with pts who received LDAC (31.0% vs 11.1%; odds ratio 3.59 [95% CI: 1.15, 11.18]; P = 0.0277), with a median (range) time to remission of 71 (29–158) days and 69 (34–125) days, respectively. Remissions with V + LDAC were observed across genetic groups, including pts with adverse cytogenetics. A trend for longer median EFS was observed for pts who received V + LDAC compared with those who received LDAC (HR 0.61 [95% CI: 0.35, 1.05]; P = 0.0725; Figure). Follow-up for OS was ongoing at the time of this analysis. Among pts achieving CR/CRi, only 2 had experienced recurrence or death at the time of analysis (1 in each arm after a remission duration of 57 [V + LDAC] or 67 [LDAC] days). For all other pts ongoing in remission, the remission duration was censored after 53–407 days (LDAC + V) or 32–282 days (LDAC), consistent with prolonged duration of remission in some pts. The most frequent all grade adverse events (AEs) in the V + LDAC arm were febrile neutropenia (50%), constipation (45.2%), nausea (40.5%) and anemia (40.5%). In the LDAC arm, the most common all grade AEs were nausea (33.3%), anemia (28.9%), pyrexia (28.9%), and constipation, asthenia and diarrhea (26.7% each). More pts who received V + LDAC experienced ≥ grade 3 AEs than those who received LDAC (95.2% vs 68.9%), particularly for blood and lymphatic system disorders (81.0% vs 44.4%), gastrointestinal disorders (21.4% vs 6.7%), and infections and infestations (45.2% vs 22.2%). The early death rates (V + LDAC/LDAC) at 30, 60 and 90 days were comparable between the two treatment arms: 30 days, 9.5%/8.9%; 60 days, 21.5%/17.8%; 90 days, 28.9%/33.4% (rates calculated using Kaplan-Meier method). PK analyses demonstrated that V is a moderate clearance drug with multi-compartmental PK behavior, a large volume of distribution and a long terminal half-life. Preliminary data suggest no drug-drug interactions following combination of V with LDAC. Conclusions: These preliminary phase II data demonstrate a significantly improved CR/CRi rate and a trend for EFS benefit with V + LDAC compared with LDAC alone in pts with newly diagnosed AML ineligible for intensive treatment. An increased frequency of AEs was observed with the addition of V, which was expected given its myelosuppressive mechanism of action; available data do not suggest increased early mortality for V + LDAC vs LDAC. A confirmatory phase III trial is needed to determine the clinical benefit of V + LDAC in pts with AML ineligible for intensive treatment. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Volasertib is an investigational agent. Fiedler:Pfizer, Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Bug:Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Müller-Tidow:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding. Voss:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Taube:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Fritsch:Boehringer-Ingelheim: Employment. Döhner:Celgene, Amgen, Ambit, Astellas, Lilly: Consultancy.

Description: Abstract 1549 Background: The prognosis of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (rel/ref) AML who are considered unlikely to benefit from or tolerate intensive salvage treatment is unfavorable and novel treatment strategies are needed. Repeated cycles of LD-Ara-C are a therapeutic option for palliative treatment; however, the outlook for these pts remains unsatisfactory. Plks are critical in cellular division and mitotic progression and Plk1 is overexpressed in many cancers including AML. Volasertib is a first in class, selective and potent cell cycle kinase inhibitor that induces mitotic arrest and apoptosis by targeting Plk. In phase I/II trials in pts with solid tumors, volasertib demonstrated a favorable safety profile and encouraging antitumor activity. Here, we present updated results from the phase I part of an ongoing phase I/II study of volasertib in combination with LD-Ara-C or as monotherapy in AML pts considered ineligible for intensive salvage treatment. Material and Methods: This study follows a two-stage design. The phase I part, reported here, investigates the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of volasertib as a 1-hr intravenous infusion on days 1 and 15 Q4W as monotherapy or in combination with fixed dose LD-Ara-C 20 mg bid subcutaneously on days 1–10 Q4W in pts with rel/ref AML. Dose escalation follows a 3+3 design with de-escalation. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic (PK) analyses were taken in cycles 1 and 2 and concentrations of volasertib and LD-Ara-C were determined. Results: In the monotherapy arm, increasing volasertib doses (150, 200, 350, 400, 450 mg) were evaluated in 29 pts (median age: 71 yrs [range 26–84]). Drug-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in 8 pts (27.6 %). Most frequent drug-related AEs (〉5%) were anemia in 3 pts (10.3%), and thrombocytopenia, epistaxis, and nausea in 2 pts each (6.9%). Grade 3/4 drug-related AEs included thrombocytopenia (2 cases), anemia, diarrhea, mucositis, neutropenia, and pneumonia (1 case each); there was 1 fatal (grade 5) drug-related AE (fungal pneumonia). Of the drug-related AEs, the following were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) per protocol: grade 4 pneumonia and fatal fungal pneumonia (n=1, at 150 mg), and grade 3 mucositis (n=1, at 400 mg). Monotherapy dose escalation is ongoing; pts have received volasertib doses of 500 mg without having reached the MTD. Preliminary best response data indicated minor antileukemic activity at low doses (150 and 200 mg); with 4/13 pts achieving no change as best response, mostly of short duration (median number of cycles initiated: 1 [range 1–5]). At higher monotherapy doses (≥350 mg), antileukemic activity was observed with 4/16 pts achieving a complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) and 5/16 having temporarily stable blood values as best response. In the combination arm, volasertib doses of 150–400 mg were investigated. The MTD for volasertib in combination with LD-Ara-C was 350 mg (Bug et al ASH 2010). Seven out of 32 pts treated with volasertib + LD-Ara-C achieved a complete remission (CR or CRi). In responding patients, a median number of 6 treatment cycles was initiated (range 3–13) and a preliminary analysis revealed a median overall survival of 551 days (range 165–595). PK analysis showed that volasertib is a moderate clearance drug with multi-compartmental PK behavior with a large volume of distribution (〉4000 L) and a long terminal half-life (∼111 hrs). No drug interaction after co-administration of LD-Ara-C was observed. Conclusions: The phase I part of the study determined the MTD of volasertib in combination with LD-Ara-C to be 350 mg; the MTD of volasertib monotherapy has not yet been determined. Volasertib was well tolerated in this heavily pretreated AML pt population at doses above the recommended phase II volasertib dose used in pts with solid tumors. Most of the reported higher grade drug-related AEs were due to the myelosuppressive effect of volasertib. Preliminary results from the phase I trial show antileukemic activity of volasertib as monotherapy and in combination with LD-Ara-C. These results indicate Plk to be a potential new target for AML treatment and warrant proceeding with further clinical investigation of volasertib in AML pts. Disclosures: Bug: Novartis Pharma GmbH: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene GmbH: Consultancy, Honoraria. Off Label Use: Volasertib is an investigational agent. Müller-Tidow:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding. Krug:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding. Voss:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Taube:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Fritsch:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Garin-Chesa:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Ottmann:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy. Döhner:Celgene, Clavis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Description: Abstract 3316 Background: Patients with refractory or relapsed AML have a poor prognosis and new treatments are needed for this patient population. While younger AML patients might benefit from intensive salvage treatments, a substantial number of elderly patients are considered ineligible for intensive treatment approaches. For these patients, repeated cycles of low-dose cytarabine (LD-Ara-C) are an accepted therapeutic option for palliative treatment. The serine/threonine kinase Polo-like kinase 1 (Plk1) controls several key steps in mitosis. BI 6727 is a first in class, highly selective and potent cell cycle kinase inhibitor targeting Plk1, and has demonstrated antiproliferative activity in multiple cell lines and animal models. Targeting Plk1 with BI 6727 results in cell cycle arrest in prometaphase (referred to as polo arrest) leading to eventual apoptosis. In a phase I dose escalation trial in patients with advanced solid tumors a favorable safety profile and encouraging antitumor activity was reported. BI 6727 has demonstrated a long terminal half life of 111 hours and a high volume of distribution suggesting excellent tissue distribution in patients. Here, we present preliminary results from the Phase I part of an ongoing Phase I/II study of BI 6727 in combination with LD-Ara-C in patients with relapsed or refractory AML considered ineligible for intensive treatment. Methods: This study follows a two stage design: the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of BI 6727 in combination with fixed dose LD-Ara-C was evaluated in the Phase I dose escalation part of the trial following a 3+3 design with de-escalation. In a second ongoing treatment schedule the MTD of single agent BI 6727 is investigated, the MTD of single agent BI 6727 has not been reached yet. In the planned randomized Phase II part of the study, efficacy of BI 6727 plus LD-Ara-C will be compared to LD-Ara-C alone. BI 6727 was administered as a one hour intravenous infusion on days 1+15 every 28 days in combination with fixed dose LD-Ara-C (20 mg bid s.c). The BI 6727 starting dose was based on the MTD previously determined in solid tumor patients. Patients with no progression after the first cycle were allowed to continue treatment. Results: Patient characteristics were as follows: median age was 71 years (range 40 – 81); ECOG performance score 0: 9 pts; 1: 17 pts; 2: 5 pts. Increasing BI 6727 doses in combination with LD-Ara-C were evaluated in 31 patients (21 males, 10 females). Safety: Drug related adverse events (AEs) were reported in 17 of the 31 patients. The most frequent AEs reported (〉5%) were: anemia and febrile neutropenia (each 9.7%), infections (pneumonia), decreased appetite and headache (each 6.5%). Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported in 4 patients treated with BI 6727 + LD-Ara-C. DLTs as rated per protocol were: pneumonia, mucositis, hypersensitivity/allergic reaction and myocardial infarction. Based on the preliminary reports on DLTs the MTD for BI 6727 in combination with LD-Ara-C was determined. Preliminary response data of 28 patients with relapsed/refractory AML treated at different BI 6727 doses in combination with LD-Ara-C are available: 5 patients achieved a CRi or CR, 2 patients achieved a PR. Six patients had temporarily stable blood values (“no change” as best response). 10 patients suffered from progression during or at the end of the 1st treatment cycle, and 5 patients were ineligible for response assessment. An update of the phase I part of this trial with further details on patient/disease characteristics, safety and efficacy of BI 6727 in combination with LD-Ara-C will be reported at the meeting. Conclusion: Preliminary results indicate that BI 6727 in combination with LD-Ara-C is well tolerated in patients with relapsed/refractory AML ineligible for intensive treatment. The MTD of BI 6727 in combination with LD-Ara-C was determined. BI 6727 in combination with LD-Ara-C showed first signs of clinical activity in AML patients. Safety and efficacy of BI 6727 + LD-Ara-C will be further explored in the phase II part of the trial. Disclosures: Off Label Use: LD-Ara-C in combination with BI 6727 for treatment of patients with relapsed refractory AML ineligible for intensive treatment. Fleischer:Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co KG: Employment. Taube:Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co KG: Employment.