ALBERT

Description: Background: Guadecitabine (G) is a next generation subcutaneous hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase which results in prolonged in vivo exposure to the active metabolite decitabine. We conducted a large global randomized phase 3 study of G vs TC of azacitidine (AZA), decitabine (DEC), or low dose Ara-C (LDAC) in 815 TN AML patients unfit for IC (ASTRAL-1 study). The ITT results for the primary endpoints of Complete Response (CR), and Overall Survival (OS) were previously presented (Fenaux et al, EHA abstract S879, 2019). There is no consensus on definition of disease progression particularly with HMA treatment which may continue to benefit patients in the absence of objective response. EFS analysis based on end of treatment benefit (treatment discontinuation, or start of an alternative therapy, or death) regardless of progression may offer a simpler way of assessing HMA treatment benefit. We describe here the results of the study based on both PFS and EFS analyses and how they compare with OS analyses in the overall ITT population, and in subgroups of patients based on number of cycles administered. M ethods: TN-AML ineligible for IC due to age ≥ 75 y, or comorbidities, or ECOG PS 2-3 were randomized 1:1 to either G (60 mg/m2/d SC for 5-days Q28 days) or a preselected TC of AZA, DEC, or LDAC at their standard regimens. AML diagnosis, and response status by IWG 2003 criteria, were assessed by an independent central pathologist blinded to randomization assignment. CR and OS were co-primary endpoints. PFS was a secondary endpoint calculated from date of randomization to the earliest date of progression by investigators or central assessment, relapse after response, start of an alternative therapy, or death. Since progression date is sometimes difficult to ascertain under HMA treatment, an EFS analysis was conducted post hoc using the concept of time to treatment failure. EFS was therefore calculated from date of randomization to the earliest date of discontinuation of randomized treatment, start of an alternative therapy, or death. PFS, EFS, and OS data are presented for the overall ITT population, and for patients who received at least 4 cycles or 6 cycles, and patients who had an objective response. Results: 815 patients were randomized to G (408) or TC (407). Preselected TCs prior to randomization were DEC (43%), AZA (42%), and LDAC (15%). Baseline variables were well balanced across the 2 treatment arms. The majority of patients were randomized to receive an HMA: 759 patients (93%) with only 56 patients (7%) randomized to receive LDAC. In the primary ITT analysis, CR (19.4% for G and 17.4% for TC), and OS Hazard Ratio (0.97; 95% CI 0.83-1.14) were not significantly different between G and TC. An equal proportion of patients received at least 4 cycles (57.6% for G vs 59.2% for TC), or 6 cycles (45.8% for G vs 46.2% for TC) so there was no obvious bias in terms of adherence to treatment in the 2 study arms. Table shows OS, PFS, and EFS median survival, G/TC HR with 95% CI, and p values for the primary ITT population as well as for patients who received at least 4 cycles (N=476 patients), and those who received at least 6 cycles (N=375 patients). G/TC HR for all analyses favored guadecitabine (HR

Description: Background: No approved treatment options are available to HR-MDS pts after HMA therapy. Study 04-21 (“ONTIME” trial) was a Phase III, randomized, controlled study of the efficacy and safety of rigosertib, a novel small molecule inhibitor of PI3-kinase and PLK pathways, in a heterogeneous population of MDS pts who had relapsed after, failed to respond to, or progressed during administration of HMAs. The study was conducted at 87 sites in the United States and 5 European countries. Methods:From Dec 2010 to Aug 2013, 299 HR-MDS pts [7 days, mostly due to unrelated adverse events (AEs). No obvious differences between rigosertib and BSC were found in the incidence of AEs (rigosertib, 99%; BSC, 85%) or of ≥ Grade 3 AEs (rigosertib, 79%; BSC, 68%). In the rigosertib arm, AEs reported by ≥ 20% of pts, irrespective of severity or causality, were nausea (35%), diarrhea (33%), constipation (31%), fatigue (30%), fever (27%), anemia (22%), and peripheral edema (21%). Rigosertib had low myelotoxicity, consistent with previous clinical experience. Conclusions:Although the primary endpoint in this Phase III study of rigosertib vs BSC in pts with HR-MDS did not reach statistical significance in the ITT population, encouraging rigosertib treatment-related improvement in OS was noted in several subgroups of MDS pts, including those with “primary HMA failure and in patients in the IPSS-R Very High Risk category. CIV therapy with rigosertib had a favorable safety profile in this orphan population of elderly pts with MDS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Figure 3 Figure 3. Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Glaxo SmithKline: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Teva Oncology: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Maniar:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment.

Description: Background: CPX-351 (Vyxeos) is a liposomal combination of daunorubicin and cytarabine that was FDA approved in 2017 for treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC). Genomic predictors of response to CPX-351 have not been described. TP53 mutations are uncommon in de novo AML, but relatively enriched in the t-AML and AML-MRC populations for which CPX-351 is approved (Christiansen DH et al. JCO 2001; Devillier R et al. Oncotarget 2015). As TP53 mutations confer resistance to conventional daunorubicin and cytarabine chemotherapy, we sought to determine whether TP53 mutations confer resistance to CPX-351. Methods: This is a retrospective, multi-center review of patients who received at least 1 cycle of induction chemotherapy with CPX-351 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC), and Weill Cornell Medical College (WCMC). 101 patients were identified at MSKCC (n=22), MCC (n=44), and WCMC (n=35). Responses to CPX-351 were graded using European Leukemia Net (ELN) response criteria. (Döhner H et al Blood 2017) Immunophenotypic minimal residual disease (MRD) was identified in bone marrow aspirates (BMA) by multiparameter flow cytometry in 43 patients (MSKCC n=22, WCMC n=21). Any level of residual disease was considered MRD+. Molecular analysis was obtained from pre-induction BMA by next-generation sequencing using 21, 32, 49, or 400 gene panels, all of which included TP53. Cytogenetics/FISH were performed using standard techniques. Fisher's exact tests were used to determine significance and are two-tailed. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis with log-rank test was performed to estimate overall survival (OS). Results: Patient characteristics are in Table 1. 84/101 (83.1%) had baseline molecular profiling prior to CPX-351. TP53 mutations were identified in 18/84 (21.4% of patients). Analysis of additional co-mutations and responses will be presented by our collaborators (Talati et al., ASH 2018 submitted). TP53 mutations (19/20 distinct mutations) clustered in the DNA binding domain (Figure 1A). TP53 mutations are significantly associated with complex or monosomal karyotypes (p

Description: Background: Isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) mutations occur in 5-10% of patients (pts) with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and are frequently associated with intermediate-risk cytogenetics, excess bone marrow blasts, neutropenia and sustained platelets. Enasidenib (ENA) is a selective oral inhibitor of the mutant IDH2 enzyme with single-agent activity in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ENA alone and in combination with azacitidine (AZA) in pts with high-risk IDH2-mutated MDS. Methods: This is a multicenter Phase II trial for pts with IDH2-mutated MDS, AML with 20-30% marrow blasts, or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. The study includes two cohorts: HMA-naïve pts with high-risk MDS (IPSS int-2 or high-risk; IPSS-R high-risk or very high risk; or high-risk molecular features including TP53, ASXL1, EZH2 and/or RUNX1 mutations) (Arm A) receive AZA + ENA; pts relapsed/refractory with prior HMA therapy (Arm B) receive ENA alone. All pts receive ENA at a dose of 100 mg orally daily, on days 1-28 of each 28-day cycle. In Arm A, ENA is given in combination with AZA 75 mg/m2 IV or SC on days 1-7 of each cycle. The primary efficacy endpoint is overall response rate (ORR), including complete remission (CR), marrow CR (mCR), partial remission (PR) and hematologic improvement (HI) based on the Modified International Working group (IWG) Response Criteria for MDS. The primary safety endpoint is the incidence and severity of adverse events using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0. Results: Using a pre-specified data cutoff of July 1st 2019, 25 pts have been enrolled with a median follow-up of 6.4 months (range, 2.4 - 17.1); 10 HMA-naïve pts (Arm A) and 15 HMA-failure pts (Arm B). The median age was 71 years (range, 46-83) (Table 1). Sixteen pts (64%) had neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count 〈 1.0 x 109/L) and 20 pts (80%) had anemia (hemoglobin 〈 11 g/dL), including 12 (48%) red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent (TD) pts at baseline. Seventeen pts (68%) had high or very high risk IPSS-R. Nineteen pts (76%) had diploid or +8 cytogenetics, and 5 pts (20%) had -7 or complex karyotype. High-risk co-occurring mutations included ASXL1 (46%), RUNX1 (17%), EZH2 (8%) and TP53 (8%). Among 18 evaluable pts (7 too early for response assessment), the ORR was 67% (12/18) (Table 2). In HMA-naïve pts, 6/6 (100%) responded to therapy, including 2 CRs and 4 mCRs (1 with HI for neutrophils [HI-N]). In HMA-failure pts, 6/12 (50%) responded, including 2 CRs, 1 PR, 1 mCR (with HI-N) and 2 with stable disease with HI (1 with HI-N, 1 with HI erythroid). Interestingly, 3 pts who achieved CR also had clearance of the IDH2 mutation (1 in Arm A; 2 in Arm B). Two of 5 pts (40%) and 3/7 pts (43%) with neutropenia at baseline achieved HI-N in Arm A and B, respectively. Median time to first and best response were both 1.3 months (range, 0.9-2.1) in Arm A and 1.8 months (range, 0.9-3.7) and 2.7 months (0.9-4.6), respectively in Arm B. Among evaluable pts with RBC TD at baseline, 0/2 pt and 3/8 (38%) pts achieved transfusion independence, in Arm A and B, respectively. At last follow-up, 16 pts remain on treatment (7 with ongoing response) and 9 pts stopped treatment: 4 due to progression, 1 pt decision, 1 underwent allogeneic transplant and 3 responding pts with mCR died from pneumonia or other infectious complications while on study (Figure 1). Adverse events (AEs) of any grade were reported in 17/25 pts (68%) and grade 3-4 AEs were reported in 11/25 pts (44%). Most AEs were manageable without dose interruption. The most common non-hematological AEs were unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia (39%), nausea (33%), fatigue (33%), pneumonia (22%) and diarrhea (17%). Possible differentiation syndrome (DS) was reported in 3 pts on days 31, 38 and 42 of treatment; 2 pts received dexamethasone with resolution, and 1 pt required hydrea and was ultimately determined to have progression to AML. Four pts developed leukocytosis (white blood cell count of 15.3, 28.3, 35.7, 56.6 x 109/L), with 3 at the time of possible DS and 1 at day 119 considered unrelated to DS. Conclusion: Enasidenib is well tolerated and shows promising efficacy in IDH2-mutated high-risk MDS. The ORR was 67%, including 100% in newly diagnosed pts receiving the combination of azacitidine plus enasidenib and 50% ORR in HMA-failure pts receiving enasidenib alone. The study continues to accrue and updated results will be presented at ASH. Disclosures DeZern: Celgene: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy. Takahashi:Symbio Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Konopleva:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Ablynx: Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties; Kisoji: Consultancy, Honoraria; Stemline Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffman La-Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Forty-Seven: Consultancy, Honoraria; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding. Loghavi:MDACC: Employment; GLG Consultants: Consultancy; AlphaSights: Consultancy. Alvarado:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Abbott: Honoraria. Ravandi:Selvita: Research Funding; Xencor: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding; Macrogenix: Consultancy, Research Funding; Menarini Ricerche: Research Funding. Sasaki:Otsuka: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy. Sekeres:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nazha:Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; MEI: Other: Data monitoring Committee; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmacutical: Research Funding; Tolero, Karyopharma: Honoraria. Roboz:Trovagene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amphivena: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eisai: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: 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; Otsuka: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kantarjian:Immunogen: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding. Garcia-Manero:Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. DiNardo:medimmune: Honoraria; abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; jazz: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; notable labs: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; daiichi sankyo: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Enasidenib is not approved for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome

Description: To develop a prognostic scoring system tailored for therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes (tMDS), we put together a database containing 1933 patients (pts) with tMDS from Spanish, German, Swiss, Austrian, US, Italian, and Dutch centers diagnosed between 1975-2015. Complete data to calculate the IPSS and IPSS-R were available in 1603 pts. Examining different scoring systems, we found that IPSS and IPSS-R do not risk stratify tMDS as well as they do primary MDS (pMDS), thereby supporting the need for a tMDS-specific score (Kuendgen et al., ASH 2015). The current analysis focuses on cytogenetic information as a potential component of a refined tMDS score, based on this large, unique patient cohort. Of the 1933 pts, 477 had normal karyotype (KT), 197 had missing cytogenetics, while 467 had a karyotype not readily interpretable. Incomplete karyotype descriptions will be reedited for the final evaluation. Of the remaining 1269 pts the most frequent cytogenetic abnormalities (abn) were: -7, del(5q), +mar, +8, del(7q), -5, del(20q), -17, -18, -Y, del(12p), -20, and +1 with 〉30 cases each. Frequencies are shown in Table 1. Some abn were observed mostly or solely within complex KTs, such as monosomies, except -7. Others, like del(20q) or -Y, are mainly seen as single or double abn, while del(5q), -7, or del(7q) are seen in complex as well as non-complex KTs. The cytogenetic profile overlapped with that of pMDS (most frequent abn: del(5q), -7/del(7q), +8, -18/del(18q), del(20q), -5, -Y, -17/del(17p), +21, and inv(3)/t(3q) (Schanz et al, JCO 2011)), with notable differences including overrepresentation of complete monosomies, a higher frequency of -7 or t(11q23), and a more frequent occurrence of cytogenetic subtypes in complex KTs, which was especially evident in del(5q) occurring as a single abn in 16%, compared to 70% within a complex KT. IPSS-R cytogenetic groups were distributed as follows: Very Good (2%), Good (35%), Int (17%), Poor (15%), Very Poor (32%). Regarding the number of abn (including incomplete KT descriptions) roughly 30% had a normal KT, 20% 1, 10% 2, and 40% ≥3 abn, compared to pMDS: 55% normal KT, 29% 1, 10% 2, and 6% ≥3 abn. To be evaluable for prognostic information, abn should occur in a minimum of 10 pts. As a single aberration this was the case for -7, +8, del(5q), del(20q), del(7q), -Y, and t(11;varia) (q23;varia). Of particular interest, there was no apparent prognostic difference between -7 and del(7q); del(5q) as a single abn was associated with a relatively good survival, while the prognosis was poor with the first additional abn; t(11q23) occurred primarily as a single abn and was associated with an extremely poor prognosis, and prognosis of pts with ≥4 abn was dismal independent of composition (Table 1). To develop a more biologically meaningful scoring system containing homogeneous and prognostically stable groups, we will further combine subgroups with different abn leading to the same cytogenetic consequences. For example, deletions, unbalanced translocations, derivative chromosomes, dicentric chromosomes of 17p, and possibly -17 all lead to a loss of genetic material at the short arm of this respective chromosome affecting TP53. Further information might be derived from analyses of the minimal common deleted regions. For some abn, like del(11q), del(3p), and del(9q), this can be refined to one chromosome band only (table 1). Conclusion: Development of a robust scoring system for all subtypes of tMDS is challenging using existing variables. This focused analysis on the cytogenetic score component shows that favorable KTs are evident in a substantial proportion of pts, in contrast to historic data describing unfavorable cytogenetics in the majority of pts. Although complex and monosomal KTs are overrepresented, this suggests the existence of distinct tMDS-subtypes, although some of these cases might not be truly therapy-induced despite a history of cytotoxic treatment. The next steps will be to analyze the prognosis of the different groups, develop a tMDS cytogenetic score, and examine minimal deleted regions to identify candidate genes for development of tMDS, as well as to describe the possible influence of different primary diseases and treatments (radio- vs chemotherapy, different drugs) on induction of cytogenetic subtypes. Our detailed analysis of tMDS cytogenetics should reveal important prognostic information and is likely to help understand mechanisms of MDS development. Disclosures Komrokji: Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sole:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sekeres:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:Cellectis: Research Funding; Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy. Steensma:Amgen: Consultancy; Genoptix: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy; Ariad: Equity Ownership. Schlenk:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Valent:Amgen: Honoraria; Deciphera Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding; Deciphera Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Giagounidis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Giagounidis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Platzbecker:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; TEVA Pharmaceutical Industries: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lübbert:Janssen-Cilag: Other: Travel Funding, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Travel Funding; Ratiopharm: Other: Study drug valproic acid.

Description: Introduction The primary goal for treatment of higher-risk MDS patients (pts) is to improve overall survival (OS) and delay acute myeloid leukemia (AML) evolution. The IWG 2006 response criteria are used in clinical trials and in clinical practice for assessing efficacy of MDS therapies. These criteria were originally proposed by an international group of experts based on available data and consensus. In an ad hoc landmark analysis of the AZA-001 study using the 2006 IWG criteria, pts who achieved hematological improvement (HI), complete response (CR), marrow CR (mCR), or partial response (PR) demonstrated improved OS. The aim of this study is to validate the IWG 2006 response criteria among a large cohort of higher-risk MDS pts. Methods Pts with higher-risk MDS (intermediate-2 (Int-2) or High Risk by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS)) who had received treatment and for whom details of response and outcome were available were included from the MDS CRC database. Pts were also classified per IPSS-R. The best response to treatment was categorized per the published IWG 2006 response criteria as CR, PR, mCR, HI, stable disease (SD) or progressive disease (PD). The primary endpoint was OS. Results We identified 646 treated higher-risk MDS pts. Table-1 summarizes baseline characteristics. The first line treatment was hypomethylating agent-based therapy (HMA) in 470 pts (74%). The median duration of follow up was 23.2 months (mo) (95% CI: (19.9, 26.5). Median OS from diagnosis was significantly longer for pts with int-2 IPSS risk disease IPSS (26.2 mo (21.5, 29.7)) compared to those who were High Risk (18.8 mo (15.9, 23.6); (p = 0.026). Median OS from diagnosis also differed by IPSS-R category (p 〈 0.001): for pts with Low risk (n = 6) it was not reached; Intermediate risk it was 41.7 mo (31.8, NR); High Risk it was 28.4 mo (24.1, 33.2); and for pts with Very High it was 16.5 mo (15.3, 19.1). The best IWG 2006 response rate for first line therapy among evaluable pts (n=597) was CR in 93 pts (16%), mCR in 10 (2%), PR in 57(10%), HI in 60 (10%), SD in 233 (39%), and PD in 144 (24%). The median OS based on IWG 2006 best response for first line therapy was 41 mo for CR, 12 mo for mCR, 26 mo for PR, 13 mo for HI, 14 mo for SD and 7 mo for PD. (p