ALBERT

Description: Introduction: APL, while highly curable in the modern era, remains a therapeutic challenge in the high-risk subset, with high rates of early mortality and relapse compared to non-high-risk APL. Recent evidence has confirmed excellent outcomes in non- high-risk APL with the combination of ATO and ATRA, and a previous pilot study had indicated the efficacy of a combination of ATO + ATRA + GO in high-risk APL. The North American Leukemia Intergroup designed a larger phase 2 study to confirm the efficacy and safety of this combination in high-risk APL. Primary Objectives: 1) assessment of 3-year event-free survival (EFS); 2) assessment of early (6 week) death rate. Methods: Adult patients with newly diagnosed high-risk APL (WBC ≥10k/uL) were eligible. Induction therapy consisted of: ATRA (45 mg/m2/day), beginning on day 1; ATO 0.15 mg/kg/day, beginning on day 10; GO 9 mg/m2on day 1. ATRA and ATO were continued until remission achieved. Patients in remission went on to receive consolidation with ATO x 2 cycles, followed by ATRA + daunorubicin x 2 cycles, followed by GO x 2 cycles. Subsequent maintenance therapy consisted of ATRA + 6-mercaptupurine + methotrexate for up to 1 year. Results: Between 2008 and 2013, 73 registered patients began protocol treatment. Median age was 46.5 years, with 52% females and 48% males. Sixty-two (85%) patients completed induction therapy as planned, and 50 patients (68%) completed all planned consolidation. Sixty-two patients (85%) achieved a documented complete response (CR). Non-responses were attributable to lack of response assessment (n=10), most commonly related to death. One patient had resistant disease. With a median follow-up of 3.3 years, the Kaplan Meier 3-year EFS estimate was 79% (95% CI 68% - 87%), which was significantly improved compared to the protocol-defined historical rate of 50% (p

Description: Background: Adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients with high-risk cytogenetics have a significantly worse survival compared to similarly treated intermediate- or favorable-risk patients. Although prior studies suggest better outcome in high-risk AML patients in first complete remission (CR1) who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) compared with consolidation chemotherapy, only 40% of patients proceed to HCT. The lack of a matched sibling donor (available in about 33%) should not be a barrier to HCT since alternative donors are available for the large majority of high-risk AMLpatients and recent data suggest outcomes after allogeneic HCT from fully matched unrelated donors are similar to those following matched related donor transplantation. We sought to determine if a prospective organized effort could rapidly identify alternative donors to improve the historical 40% allogeneic HCT rate in high-risk CR1 AML patients ≤ age 61. Secondly, we hypothesized that transplanting significantly more adults with high-risk AML in CR1 would lead to an improved outcome compared with the historical relapse-free survival (RFS) of 22%. Patients and Methods: Adult patients between ages 18 and 60 years with untreated AML were randomized to receive induction therapy with standard cytarabine plus daunorubicin (7+3; n=261), idarubicin with high-dose cytarabine (IA; n=261), or IA with vorinostat (IA+V; n=216). Conventional cytogenetics were obtained at time of enrollment and used to determine risk classification by standard criteria. All patients with high-risk cytogenetics underwent expedited HLA-typing. High-risk patientswere encouraged tobe referred for consultation with a transplant team with the goal of conducting an allogeneic HCT in CR1. Results: Of 738 eligible patients (median age, 49 years; range, 18-60), 159 (22%) had high-risk cytogenetics, of whom 60 (38%), 61 (38%), and 38 (24%) received induction with 7+3, IA, or IA+V, respectively. A total of 107 of the 159 high-risk patients achieved CR/CRi (67%). HCT was performed in 317 of all 738 patients (43%) and 68 (64%) of the high-risk patients received a transplant in CR1 (p

Description: Background: Standard chemotherapies for relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) are often unsuccessful. Pre-treatment ("priming") with hypomethylating agents such as decitabine has been shown to sensitize AML cells to chemotherapeutics, prompting a phase 1/2 study (NCT01729845) of MEC preceded by decitabine priming (d/MEC) in relapsed/refractory AML/MDS. Methods: Patients ≥18 years with relapsed/refractory AML or high-risk MDS (〉10% blasts) requiring first or subsequent salvage therapy were eligible if they had adequate organ function and a treatment-related mortality (TRM) score of

Description: Background: Because infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality after AML induction chemotherapy, patients typically remain hospitalized for monitoring and rapid antimicrobial therapy until hematopoietic recovery. With declining early mortality and improved oral antimicrobials, interest in moving post-induction care to the outpatient setting has emerged. In the 5-year period since completing a prospective phase 2 trial evaluating an Early Hospital Discharge (EHD) strategy, EHD following AML-like induction chemotherapy has become routine at our institution. In recent retrospective analyses, we found 〉80% of EHD patients required hospital readmission, primarily for neutropenic fever. Still, the EHD strategy was safe and reduced healthcare resource utilization, and EHD patients spent 〉70% of their post-chemotherapy time as outpatients. Here, we investigated differences in the pattern of infectious complications between patients managed as outpatients following induction chemotherapy and those who remain hospitalized until hematopoietic recovery. Methods: We retrospectively identified all adults ≥18 years with untreated AML/high-grade myeloid neoplasms (≥10% blasts in blood/ bone marrow) who started intensive induction chemotherapy ("7+3" or a regimen of similar/higher intensity) at our institution from 8/1/2014-7/31/2018. Patients were considered "EHD" if they were discharged from the hospital

Description: We used next generation sequencing (NGS) of the immunoglobulin genes to evaluate minimal residual disease (MRD) in 153 specimens from 32 patients with newly diagnosed adult B cell ALL enrolled in the phase II SWOG S0333 multi-center study. We used the clonoSEQTM assay developed by Adaptive Biotechnologies that detects 1 leukemic cell in a background of 1 million nucleated cells and focuses in the B cell receptor (Ig). Initially, a set of pre-study specimens was sequenced in order to identify the precise sequence of the VDJ or DJ fragments. Clones representing more than 5% of the total repertoire of IgH molecules profiled were considered potentially leukemic. The follow-up specimen IgH repertoire sequences were compared to the diagnostic clonal ones and the leukemic marker sequence(s) previously identified were searched for explicitly. At least one Ig clonotype was detected in 29/32 (91%) cases analyzed. The 3 remaining cases were reviewed, and in 2 cases the specimens available for NGS had been reported as having no blasts by morphology. The leukemic clonal sequence was a complete VDJ rearrangement in 17/32 patients (53%), an incomplete DJ rearrangement in 8/32 patients (25%), and in 3/32 cases both VDJ and DJ rearrangements coexisted. One patient had a kappa light chain rearrangement. 17/32 (53%) cases contained more than one IgH rearrangement at diagnosis (median=2, range: 1 - 4). One of our patients is a potential case of therapy driven clonal selection. He presented at diagnosis with two related clones, one representing 75% of VDJ sequences and the second one 18%. At relapse, the second clone was responsible for most of the VDJ sequences (95%). The NGS results were compared to the MRD results detected by multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) in 66 specimens analyzed by both methods. The concordance between the methods in the qualitative determination of the presence or absence of leukemia was 82% (54/66). In 12 specimens (18%) MRD was detected by sequencing but not by MFC. One specimen had MRD detected at very low levels by MFC and was negative by NGS. Our study includes 54 paired bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood (PB) specimens. The median values of leukemia detected by NGS were 6-fold higher in BM than PB (range: 0.38 - 821-fold). Twenty-five pairs show no detectable MRD in either specimen. MRD was still detectable in 20 of the remaining 29 PB cases (for one of the pairs the BM specimen was negative). In 6/9 (67%) pairs of samples with disease detectable in BM but not in PB by NGS, no MRD was detected by MFC in the BM specimen. Lastly, outcome analysis was conducted in 21/32 patients with specimen available for MRD studies at the time of registration to second induction. Patients without MRD by NGS had a 5-year relapse free survival (RFS) of approximately 80%, while patients with MRD positive by both NGS and flow have the poorest outcome (p = 0.003) (see Figure). Patients with MRD detectable only by NGS have and intermediate RFS (p = 0.078, and p = 0.04 when compared to patients with MRD negative by both techniques, and patients with leukemia detected both by NGS and flow respectively). These results suggest that MRD detection by immunoglobulin gene sequencing is a very sensitive technique, and may identify patients with an excellent survival. Moreover, the increased sensitivity of the method may allow peripheral blood testing to supplement routine marrow sampling for MRD determination. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Williamson: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kirsch:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Employment, Equity Ownership. Robins:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Equity Ownership.

Description: Background: We have previously shown that the survival of patients with AML who fail to achieve complete remission (CR) with 7+3 has improved since the 1980s. However, although CR rates with 7+3 have improved over the last four decades, we have not previously evaluated how outcomes for patients who achieve a CR1 with 7+3 has changed over time. Here we evaluate if either length of first CR (CR1) after 7+3 or of survival after relapse from CR1 has changed over the last four decades. Patients and Methods:We analyzed 1247 patients randomized to 7+3 arms from 5 SWOG studies and restricted to patients age 65 or younger: S8600 (n=530), S9031 (n=98), S9333 (n=57), S0106 (n=301), S1203 (n=261). S8600 enrolled patients in the 1980s, S9031 and S9333 in the 1990s, S0106 in the 2000s, and S1203 in the 2010s. S9031 and S9333 were analyzed together. All 5 protocols gave 7+3 per existing standard, which changed over time. In S8600, S9031, and S9033 the ara-C and daunorubicin doses were 200mg/m2and 45mg/m2, in S0106 100mg/m2and 60mg/m2, and in S1203 200mg/m2and 90mg/m2. CR was defined morphologically. To account for censoring in the dataset, we used landmark analyses. To evaluate patterns in length of CR1, among patients achieving CR1 and alive at 2 and 3 years, we calculated the proportion of 2 (or 3) years spent in CR1. To evaluate survival after relapse, among patients who achieved CR1 but who relapsed in next 2 (or 3) years we calculated the proportion of patients alive at least 1 year after relapse. To account for changing patient characteristics over time, multivariate linear and logistic regression models were fit. Results:Overall survival has improved dramatically over the last 4 decades (Figure 1). Additionally, among patients who achieved CR1 and were alive 2 years later, the proportion of those 2 years spent in CR1 has significantly improved over the last 4 decades (Figure 2) from a median of 58% to a median of 96% (p

Description: Abstract 2191 Background: Treatment protocols for newly diagnosed AML typically use age (often 60 years) alone to restrict eligibility to either younger or older patients. Implied in this practice is the assumption that age is the principal predictor of therapeutic failure in AML due to either early treatment-related mortality (TRM) or resistance to therapy in patients who do not incur TRM. Yet, clinical observation and previous studies indicate that other prognostic factors modulate the effect of age on TRM and resistance, suggesting that age as sole or primary criterion for treatment allocation may be suboptimal. Methods: To test this hypothesis in newly-diagnosed non-APL AML, we quantified the relative effects of age and other covariates using 1,127 patients (median age: 57 years) treated on Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trials from 1986–2009 and 1,604 patients (median age: 61 years) treated on various protocols at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDA) from 2000–2008. We calculated weekly hazard rates (the probability of death in week × given that the patient was alive at the beginning of the week) for both cohorts overall and in various age subgroups. We used the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) to quantify the effects of covariates for prediction of TRM and resistance (no TRM but patient does not enter CR or relapses within 1 year of CR), where an AUC of 1 indicates that a covariate is perfect at prediction while an AUC of 0.5 indicates no prediction (i.e. it is no better than flipping a coin). Results: Despite the use of different treatment protocols, survival in the SWOG and MDA cohorts was virtually superimposable. In both cohorts, the maximum weekly hazard occurred at weeks 3 and 4 from start of treatment, after which it decreased. The maximum hazard was relatively independent of age and remained between weeks 3 and 5 in patients age 70 years, respectively. The existence of such a discrete cut-point suggested that patients who die early are qualitatively distinct and prompted us to examine the relative effect of age and other covariates in patients who (a) died within the first 30 days of treatment (our empirically-based definition of TRM, 9% of MDA and 12 % of SWOG patients, respectively) and (b) survived at least 30 days but did not enter complete remission or relapsed within 1 year (“resistant”, 43% of MDA and 59% of SWOG patients, respectively). A model including age alone to predict early mortality had an AUC of 0.67, while a model including performance status (PS) alone had an AUC of 0.72. By comparison, a more refined model hat included PS, age, platelet count, cytogenetics, secondary AML, albumin, white blood cell count, peripheral blood blast count, and LDH yielded an AUC of 0.86. Elimination of age resulted in a model with an AUC that was only minimally lower (0.85). Prediction of resistance was more difficult with a model including age, secondary AML, cytogenetics, peripheral blood blasts, race, hemoglobin, and marrow neutrophils giving an AUC of only 0.70. Elimination of age had little effect (AUC 0.67) while age alone gave an AUC of 0.64. Conclusion: Age alone appears inadequate in predicting resistance and particularly TRM. The use of models based on several covariates improves predictive ability, but the ability to predict resistance is still limited, suggesting the value of randomized trials to assess treatment designed to reduce resistance. The observation that elimination of age has little effect on the predictive ability of such models, suggests that age is primarily a surrogate for other covariates. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Description: Background: Optimal treatment for medically less fit adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains uncertain. Retrospective data suggest intensive therapy may lead to better outcomes in these patients. However, these findings must be interpreted cautiously because of the possibility of selection bias and other confounders. Ideally, the optimal treatment intensity is defined via randomized trial but whether patients and their physicians are amenable to such a study is unknown. We therefore designed a trial (NCT03012672) to 1) evaluate the feasibility of randomization between intensive and non-intensive therapy in this population and 2) examine the impact of treatment intensity on response rate and survival. We used CLAG-M as high-dose cytarabine-based intensive induction therapy. Rather than selecting different classes of drugs in the 2 treatment arms- which may have different modes of action and therefore confound the question of treatment intensity - we used reduced-dose ("mini") CLAG-M as the non-intensive comparator. Methods: Adults ≥18 years were eligible if they had untreated AML or high-grade myeloid neoplasms (≥10% blasts in blood or marrow) and were medically less fit as defined by having a "treatment related mortality" (TRM) score of ≥13.1, corresponding to a 〉10-15% 28-day mortality with intensive chemotherapy. Left ventricular ejection fraction ≤45% was the only organ function exclusion. Patient-physician pairs were first asked if they were amenable to randomized treatment allocation. If so, they were randomized 1:1 to mini- vs. regular-dose CLAG-M. If not, in order to evaluate our secondary endpoints, the patient or physician could choose the treatment arm and still enroll on study. Patients and physicians then completed surveys elucidating their decision-making processes. Up to 2 induction courses were given with mini- vs. regular-dose CLAG-M: cladribine 2 or 5 mg/m2/day (days 1-5), cytarabine 100 or 2,000 mg/m2/day (days 1-5), G-CSF 300 or 480µcg/day for weight

Description: Introduction: Many patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome with 10-19% blasts (MDS-EB2) do not enter complete remission (CR) following initial induction chemotherapy. At an academic referral center, such patients often stay to receive additional treatment, or return to their home communities for further care. For patients and providers alike, the decision about whether to stay or go after initial treatment failure is often fraught. To better inform such decision-making, in this retrospective single-center analysis, we compared covariate-adjusted survival for patients who elected to stay for further treatment at our center and those who returned to their home communities for subsequent care. Methods: We included adults ≥ age 18 years of age with newly-diagnosed AML or MDS-EB2 treated at our institution between January 2012 and May 2018 who failed to enter CR (〈 5% morphologic bone marrow blasts) or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) after their first cycle of induction chemotherapy. We excluded patients who died before they could begin re-induction therapy. Patients who stayed at our institution for additional treatment are referred to as the "stay" group (n=86); patients who left are considered the "go" group (n=35). Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to account for other measured covariates possibly influencing survival. Results: The go group was older and had a higher median treatment-related mortality (TRM) score (Table 1), the latter predictive of the probability of death within the first 28 days of initial induction therapy. Forty-seven percent of stay patients received high-intensity re-induction (containing cytarabine at individual doses ≥1g/m2) while 50% received low-intensity treatment (e.g. azacitidine, decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine). Twenty-nine percent of go patients received treatment (mostly low-intensity) in the community setting, while 63% received supportive care only. The stay patients had a median of 2 subsequent hospitalizations (range 0-12) and spent a median of 27 days hospitalized after initial treatment failure (range 0-124). Survival was longer in the stay group compared to the go group (median 8.3 vs. 1.8 months, p

Description: Background: Less-fit patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplasia (MDS) age 60 years and older constitute the majority of patients with AML/MDS but are not well represented in clinical trials. DNA-methyltransferase inhibitor (HMA) monotherapy (e.g. azacitidine or decitabine) is usual. Overall response rates (ORR) are low; improvement in overall survival relative to supportive care alone is modest, highlighting the critical need for efficient identification of effective novel therapies. Blocking programed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) signaling with nivolumab may increase the sensitivity of AML cells to azacitidine and improve outcomes and is the focus of one arm of the S1612 trial. Signaling through PD-1 contributes to tumor immune evasion and growth in AML [Chen, Cancer Biol Ther 2008]. Increased expression of PD-1 (~40% of AML), is associated with poor HMA response [Ørskov, Oncotarget 2015]. A single center azacitidine/nivolumab non-randomized phase II study in relapsed/refractory AML reported ORR of 33% (23/70), including 22% complete remission/complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery [Daver, Cancer Discovery 2018]. About 25% of the patients developed grade 2-4 immune toxicities; nivolumab immune-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in nearly 1 in 7 patients. Study Design and Methods:The S1612 trial [NCT03092674] is a platform randomized phase II/III clinical trial with a common azacitidine control arm (CA) and two currently active experimental arms (EA). Therapy is intended for community setting: azacitidine/nivolumab; and azacitidine/midostaurin. The innovative design utilizes a phase II go/no-go decision comparing each EA with the CA independently when there are 100 pts/arm and 104 deaths on the EA and CA combined. EAs will proceed to phase III if the null hypothesis (HR=1) is rejected in favor of the EA (15% one-sided alpha). When the two currently active EAs complete phase II accrual, a third EA (decitabine/cytarabine) will open. The CA stays open the entire length of the trial and only concurrently randomized patients will be compared across arms. If an EA proceeds to phase III, 200 additional patients (300 total patients) will be accrued. Phase III analysis occurs 1.5 years after accrual or at 414 deaths (in the respective EA and CA), whichever comes first. The phase III tests the null hypothesis with 4.5% two-sided alpha and 83% power for each EA to detect an improvement in median OS from 10.4 to 15.6 months. Eligible pts are age ≥60 years, newly diagnosed AML with ≥ 20% blasts or myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts-2 (MDS-EB-2); deemed by the treating physician unfit for standard cytotoxic chemotherapy; and no prior HMA permitted. Trial in Progress Issues:Between December 2017 and October 2018, 113 patients were screened and 78 randomized to study treatment (median/range age: 75/61-86 years; median/range performance status 1/0-3). Two concerns challenged this trial: 1) required administration of 7-day azacitidine at the enrolling sites created a burden for this population and 2) an early excess grade 5 toxicity signal in the azacitidine/nivolumab arm compared with the control arm. Without a control comparison, this safety signal likely would have been missed. Strategies to address these concerns were developed by the study team. Discussion with the sponsor and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) focused on allowance of standard-of-care protocol-directed azacitidine administration in the patient's primary care doctor's office rather than at the oncology center. Because of the toxicity concern, the trial was placed on partial clinical hold for further evaluation and possible nivolumab-arm eligibility changes, along with new surveillance and pre-emptive action including prompt steroid initiation for suspected immune-related toxicities. The S1612 trial highlights special concerns when enrolling vulnerable populations onto leukemia clinical trials, and the importance of collaborative strategies including with the FDA to preserve clinical trial integrity for patient benefit. It also demonstrates the efficiency this novel platform design has for therapeutic investigation and, importantly, very early identification of serious toxicity. Updates on accrual and resolution and of these issues will be presented. Disclosures Hay: Kite: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Assouline:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Walter:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Race Oncology: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Amphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Aptevo Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Argenx BVBA: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; BioLineRx: Consultancy; BiVictriX: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Covagen: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Radich:TwinStrand Biosciences: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: RNA Sequencing. Othus:Celgene: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; Glycomimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee. Erba:Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Michaelis:Pfizer: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; JAZZ: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, uncompensated, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding; ASTEX: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Macrogeneics: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Off label experimental combination therapies in newly diagnosed AML/MDS will be discussed, including nivolumab and azacitidine.