Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 126, No. 23 ( 2015-12-03), p. 907-907

Abstract: Background Somatic mutations identified in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are associated with disease features and carry prognostic information independent of the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and the revised IPSS (IPSS-R). Risk models that include mutation information have been proposed, but not widely adopted. In practice, there is no consensus on how to best combine clinical information with tumor sequencing data to predict prognosis. To accomplish this, we must define the relevant genes to consider and accurately measure their prognostic impact. Here we examine the relationship between mutations in MDS-associated genes and clinically relevant measures, including overall survival, in a large, multi-center analysis of MDS patient cohorts collected around the globe. Methods Data on 3392 MDS patients gathered by members of the International Working Group for Prognosis in MDS-Molecular Committee were combined under the aegis of the MDS Foundation. Patients gave informed consent for collection of their data and tumor samples at their respective institutions in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Samples were examined for somatic mutations primarily by next generation sequencing. Categorical variables were compared using a chi-squared test, while continuous variables were compared using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of the sequenced sample to the date of death and was censored at transplant or the last known follow-up time. P-values are two-sided and considered significant at the 〈 0.001 level to adjust for multiple comparisons. Results Survival data were available for 3200 patients with a median follow up of 3.7 years and included 1671 deaths. Median survival of the cohort was 2.88 years. The 27 genes sequenced in at least half of the cohort and mutated in 〉 1.5% of samples were included for analysis (Figure 1). Mutations in 12 genes were strongly associated with shorter OS in univariate analyses (p 〈 0.001 for each gene): ASXL1, CBL, EZH2, IDH2, NF1, NRAS, PTPN11, RUNX1, SRSF2, STAG2, TP53, and U2AF1. Only mutations of SF3B1 were associated with a longer OS at this significance threshold. The large size of the cohort allowed for more precise estimates of survival in less frequently mutated genes. For example, mutations of IDH2 (present in 3.4% of cases, n=103) were associated with shorter OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-2.05; p=0.0001) whereas IDH1 mutations (present in 2.4% of cases, n=77) were only marginal (HR 1.29, CI: 0.97-1.72; p=0.082), demonstrating the distinct impact of mutations in these highly related genes. IPSS-R risk groups could be determined for 2173 patients and were strongly associated with OS. Adjusting the hazard ratio of death for IPSS-R risk groups identified several mutated genes with independent prognostic significance: TP53 (HR 2.37, CI 1.94-2.90), CBL (HR 1.57, CI 1.22-2.03), EZH2 (HR 1.55, CI 1.22-2.03), and RUNX1 (HR 1.50, CI 1.24-1.83). Mutations of U2AF1 (HR 1.29, CI 1.06-1.58) and ASXL1 (HR 1.21, CI 1.04-1.41) retained a more modest association with shorter OS. Adjustment for IPSS-R risk groups also moderated the favorable risk associated with mutations of SF3B1 (HR 0.83, CI 0.70-0.99). Patients without mutations in any of the 6 adverse genes above represented 58% of the fully sequenced cohort and had a longer median survival than patients with adverse mutations (4.8 years vs. 1.6 years respectively, p 〈 0.0001; Figure 2) even after correction for IPSS-R risk groups (adjusted HR 0.59, CI 0.51-0.67). Multivariable analysis of this dataset will examine the combined contribution of mutated genes to prognosis. A mutation score based on survival risk will be proposed and internally validated. The impact of somatic mutation in patients traditionally considered lower risk will be explored. Conclusions This large study definitively validates the prognostic value of mutations in several MDS-associated genes while clarifying the significance of other, less frequently mutated ones. Mutations in several genes retain their prognostic significance after adjustment for IPSS-R risk groups, indicating that these select abnormalities could refine the prediction of prognosis when incorporated into a clinical scoring system such as the IPSS-RM. The results of this analysis will serve as the template with which to build an integrated molecular risk model for MDS. Disclosures Bejar: Alexion: Other: ad hoc advisory board; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genoptix Medical Laboratory: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: MDS prognostic gene signature. Haferlach:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sekeres:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TetraLogic: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fenaux:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kern:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shih:Novartis: Research Funding. Komrokji:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacylics: Speakers Bureau. List:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Santini:celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Onconova: Honoraria, Research Funding. Campbell:14M genomics: Other: Co-founder and consultant. Ebert:Celgene: Consultancy; Genoptix: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties; H3 Biomedicine: Consultancy.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V126.23.907.907

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2015

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 128, No. 22 ( 2016-12-02), p. 1063-1063

Abstract: Introduction: Patients with RR-AML, particularly older adults, have dismal outcomes and limited therapy options. Given low response rates and high toxicity with salvage intensive chemotherapy, and frequent ineligibility for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT), many patients are treated with HMAs. Robust data regarding use of HMAs in AML predominates in the frontline setting, while their use in RR-AML has limited supportive data. Here wesought to analyze theoutcomes and their predictors in patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs. Methods:We collected data, spanning a period from 2006 to 2016, from 7 centers in the United States and 4 centers in Europe regarding patients treated with HMAs for RR-AML. Responses were defined by International Working Group criteria. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated overall survival (OS) from initiation of HMAs to death or end of follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds for response, and multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard (CPH) models estimated hazards ratios (HR) for OS. Covariates considered included HMA received, age at diagnosis (in years), AML classification at diagnosis (AML with myelodysplasia-related changes [AML-MRC], therapy-related [t] -AML), disease status (relapsed vs. refractory), number of therapy lines prior to HMA (1 vs. 2 vs. 〉 =3), duration of first complete remission (CR1), white blood cell count, peripheral blood blast percentage, bone marrow (BM) cellularity ( 〈 =20% vs. 〉 20%), BM blast percentage ( 〈 =20% vs. 〉 20%), cytogenetic risk group, and the presence of complex or chromosome 7 abnormalities. Results: Of 514 patients, 217 patients (42.2%) had refractory and 297 (58%) had relapsed AML. By end of study, 415 patients (88.5%) had died. Median follow-up for living patients was 11.6 months.Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range [R], 16-92). AML-MRC was diagnosed in 29.0% while 8.2% had t-AML. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (R, 1-7), with 48.3% receiving 1 prior line, 30.2% receiving 2 prior lines, and 21.5% receiving 〉 =3 prior lines. Prior alloSCT was performed in 21.2%. Only 1.9% had good risk (core binding factor) karyotype, while 56.2% had intermediate risk karyotype, and 41.9% had poor risk karyotype. Azacitidine was used in 45.8% and decitabine in 54.2%; median number of azacitidine cycles was 4 (Interquartile range [IQR], 2-6) compared to 2 for decitabine (IQR, 1-4, p 〈 0.001). Best response to HMAs was CR in 11.7% (95%CI, 9%-14%), CRi in 6.4% (95%CI, 4.3%-8.8%), hematologic improvement (HI) in 8% (95%CI, 5.7%-10.5%), stable disease (SD) in 9.8% (95%CI, 7.2%-12.5%), while 64.1% (95%CI, 57.7%-66.2%) had progressive disease (PD). Median OS from HMA initiation for all patients was 6.9 months (IQR, 3.0-13.3). There was a significant difference in OS based on best response achieved [Figure 1]. Unadjusted OS showed an insignificant trend for worsening with increasing number of prior lines of therapy [Figure 2A] . In unadjusted analyses, there was no difference in OS based on HMA received in all patients [Figure 2B] or the subset who received only 1 prior line of therapy (median OS: Azacitidine vs. decitabine 8.4 vs 7.3 months, p=0.88). Following HMA therapy, the median number of subsequent therapies was 0 (R, 0-6), and only 12.8% underwent alloSCT. In multivariate CPH models, HMA used was not significantly associated with OS (HR=0.80, 95%CI, 0.42-1.51, p=0.49), while increasing age, and presence of complex cytogenetics and chromosome 7 abnormalities were significantly associated with risk of death [Table 1] . In multivariable logistic regression models, HMA used was not associated with achieving CR+CRi (Odds ratio=0.56, p=0.32). Conclusions: In this largest reported cohort of patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs, we found that HMAs are often used as alast line of therapy, with a minority of patients receiving subsequent treatment. Nonetheless, the minority of patients who achieve CR (11.7%) with HMA therapy had a median OS of 25.6 months. Therefore, use of HMAs for management of RR-AML is a reasonable intervention in the absence of clinical trial options. There appears to be no difference in OS or probability of achieving CR+CRi based on HMA used. Ongoing analyses in this dataset include further evaluations of predictors, including genetic mutations, and the development of prediction tools for clinical outcomes with HMA therapy. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Podoltsev: Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ritchie:Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Arian: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Komrokji:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Al-Kali:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. 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. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssen,Novartis, Astex, Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Prebet:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gore:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zeidan:Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V128.22.1063.1063

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2016

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 122, No. 21 ( 2013-11-15), p. 389-389

Abstract: Background hypomethylating agents, especially AZA, have become the reference standard for the of higher risk MDS, but the prognostic value of baseline cytogenetics on response to AZA, and the impact of cytogenetic response (CyR) on outcome in responders remain uncertain. Methods We collected data from 931 MDS patients (including FAB RAEB-T/WHO AML 20-30% blasts), treated with AZA (75mg/m²/d x7d, for a median of 6 cycles [range 1-72]) in 6 centers in the US, Italy and France between January 2002 and March 2013. Median age was 70 years (range 24-91 years), and 35% of the patients were women. Cytogenetics at onset of AZA was evaluable in 878 pts (the remaining pts had cytogenetic failure), 581 (66%) of whom had abnormal karyotype, as shown in table 1. Revised (R) IPSS cytogenetic category (Shanz, JCO 2012) was very good, good, int, poor and very poor in 2%, 40%, 18%, 15% and 25% pts respectively. R-IPSS was very good, good, intermediate, poor and very poor in 1%, 4%, 17%, 35% and 43% respectively. Results 379 (41%) pts achieved hematological IWG 2006 response, including 121 (13%) CR, 86 (9%) PR, 52 (6%) marrow CR, 120 (13%) stable disease with HI. With a median follow up of 41 months, median OS was 16.5 months. Cytogenetic characteristics are summarized in table 1. In the following text, unless specified, results apply to chromosomal rearrangements occurring alone or with additional abnormalities (abn). Trisomy 8 and del(5q)/-5 were associated with significantly better CR rate (21% and 18.5% , respectively, vs 12% in other patients p=0.007 and 0.01, resp.). 3q26 was associated with lower overall response rate (ORR) (22% vs 42%, p=0.04) and only 1/27 of 3q26 pts achieved CR. None of the other cytogenetic specific abnormalities or groups (table 1) and none of the R-IPSS cytogenetic categories had any significant impact on ORR or CR to AZA. Among patients with complex Karyotype ( 〉 =3), monosomal karyotype had no influence on response to AZA. When the comparison was made versus patients with normal cytogenetics, presence of -7/del(7q), del(5q)/-5, del(17p), 3q26, monosomal karyotype and complex ( 〉 =3) karyotype had no significant impact on the response rate. Compared to other patients, patients with -7/del(7q) (p 〈 10-4), del(5q)/-5 (p 〈 10-4), monosomal karyotype (p 〈 10-4), del (17p) (p 〈 10-4) had significantly shorter OS; isolated del(20q) pts had significantly better OS and isolated del 5q pts a trend for better OS (p=0.006 and 0.09, respectively) while +8 (p=0.40) , 3q26 abn (p=0.13), del(11q) (p=0.96) had no significant influence on survival. R-IPSS cytogenetic categories had also a strong impact on OS (p 〈 10-4). Of note, among pts with complex karyotype ( 〉 =3), those with very complex karyotype ( 〉 =5) had shorter OS (median 11.1 vs 15.4 mo, p=0.008). When the comparison was made versus patients with normal cytogenetics, presence of -7/del(7q), del(5q), del(17p), 3q26 , monosomal karyotype and complex ( 〉 =3) karyotype were associated with significantly shorter OS. By multivariate analysis (including cytogenetic R-IPSS categories, del 20q, 7/del(7q) , del(5q)/-5, del (17p) , 3q26 , complex and monosomal karyotype), only the presence of del (17p) (HR 1.54[1.14-2.10] , p=0.005), -7/del(7q) (HR 1.23 [1.01-1.50], p=0.04) and del(5q) (HR 1.36[1.08-1.72] , p=0.009) retained significant impact on OS. 362 pts with abnormal cytogenetics at onset of AZA had cytogenetic analysis at treatment evaluation, and results were evaluable in 327 of them (the other 35 pts had cytogenetic failure): 106 (32.4%) achieved cytogenetic response (CyR), including 82 (25%) Complete CyR (CCyR), and 24 (7.3%) Partial CyR (PCyR), while 221 (67.6%) had no CyR. Of note, among the 106 cytogenetic responders, 29 (27%) had failed to achieve any hematological response. In a landmark analysis performed 3 months after AZA onset, achievement of any CyR or of CCyR had no significant influence on survival, even when the analysis was restricted to patients who achieved IWG response. Conclusion Baseline cytogenetic pattern generally did not predict response to AZA (except the presence of +8 or del(5q), associated with higher CR rate, and 3q26 abn with fewer responses). However, cytogenetic results were strong predictors of survival, especially del (17p), -7/del(7q) and del(5q) associated with significant shorter OS in multivariate analysis. In patients with baseline cytogenetic abnormalities, achieving cytogenetic response was not associated with outcome. Disclosures: Komrokji: Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Santini:Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. List:Celgene: Research Funding. Fenaux:CELGENE: Research Funding.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V122.21.389.389

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2013

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 136, No. Supplement 1 ( 2020-11-5), p. 45-46

Abstract: Background: Therapy options for pts with HR-MDS or AML who are not candidates for intensive chemotherapy (IC) or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are limited, and clinical outcomes are poor. Novel, effective and tolerable therapies are urgently needed. TIM-3 is an inhibitory receptor that regulates both adaptive and innate immune responses. It is expressed on immune cells and on leukemic stem cells (LSCs) and blasts, but not on normal hematopoietic stem cells, making it a promising target in MDS and AML. Sabatolimab is a high-affinity, humanized, anti-TIM-3 IgG4 (S228P) antibody that simultaneously targets TIM-3 on immune and myeloid cells; this may restore immune function while also directly targeting LSCs and blasts. In preclinical studies, sabatolimab enhanced immune cell-mediated killing of AML cells in vitro. In early results from a ph 1b study (NCT03066648), sabatolimab + hypomethylating agents (HMAs; decitabine [Dec] or azacitidine [Aza] ) demonstrated encouraging overall response rates in pts with high-/very high-risk MDS (+ Dec, 61%; + Aza, 57%) and newly diagnosed AML (+ Dec, 47%; + Aza, 29%), and a favorable safety profile. Study Design and Methods: The STIMULUS clinical trial program currently includes 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of sabatolimab combination therapy in pts with HR-MDS or AML who are ineligible for IC or HSCT: STIMULUS-MDS1 (NCT03946670; ph 2) in pts with HR-MDS, STIMULUS-MDS2 (NCT04266301; ph 3) in pts with HR-MDS or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia-2 (CMML-2), and STIMULUS-AML1 (NCT04150029; ph 2) in pts with AML. STIMULUS-MDS1 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ph 2 study evaluating the addition of sabatolimab to HMA in pts with HR-MDS. The 2 primary endpoints are complete remission (CR) rate and/or progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), leukemia-free survival, duration of CR, transfusion independence, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity. Approximately 120 pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive sabatolimab 400 mg or placebo IV Q2W (D8 and D22 of each 28-d cycle), + Dec 20 mg/m2 IV on D1-D5 or Aza 75 mg/m2 IV/SC on D1-D7, or D1-D5 + D8 and D9, of each 28-d cycle. STIMULUS-MDS2 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ph 3 study of sabatolimab in combination with Aza in pts with HR-MDS or CMML-2; the primary endpoint is OS. Secondary endpoints include measures related to pt quality of life, such as time to definitive deterioration of fatigue, improvement of fatigue, transfusion-free intervals, and physical/emotional functioning, as well as additional efficacy and safety parameters. Approximately 500 pts will be randomized 1:1 to sabatolimab 800 mg or placebo IV Q4W at D8 of each 28-d cycle + Aza using the same Aza dosing schedule as in STIMULUS-MDS1. Eligible pts for STIMULUS-MDS1 or -MDS2 are treatment-naïve adults with HR-MDS (Revised International Prognostic Scoring System [IPSS-R] intermediate-/high-/very high-risk MDS). Pts with intermediate-risk MDS enrolling in STIMULUS-MDS1 are also required to have ≥5% bone marrow blasts at baseline. Pts with CMML-2 are eligible for STIMULUS-MDS2 only. STIMULUS-AML1 is a single-arm ph 2 study evaluating the safety and efficacy of sabatolimab in combination with Aza and venetoclax in pts with AML who are not candidates for IC or HSCT. Primary endpoints are incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (safety run-in) and CR rate. Secondary endpoints include safety and tolerability, CR/CRi rate, measurable residual disease-negative rate, durability of CR, relapse-free survival, EFS, OS, PK, transfusion independence, and immunogenicity. Eligible pts for STIMULUS-AML1 are adults with newly diagnosed AML who are not candidates for IC or HSCT, based on comorbidities (including renal and hepatic impairments, cardiac and pulmonary comorbidities), age (≥75 years old), or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or 3. STIMULUS-AML1 will enroll approximately 86 pts. Part 1 consists of a safety run-in (≈18 pts) across 2 escalating sabatolimab dose levels (400/800 mg IV Q4W on D8 of each 28-d cycle) in combination with Aza (75 mg/m2 IV/SC on D1-D7, or D1-D5 + D8 and D9) and venetoclax 400 mg PO QD. If this triple combination is assessed to be safe, part 2 (expansion) will open and enroll approximately 68 additional pts who will receive sabatolimab 800 mg Q4W in combination with Aza and venetoclax. Disclosures Zeidan: Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; CCITLA: Other; Taiho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acceleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; MedImmune/Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Ionis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; BeyondSpring: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aprea: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Giagounidis:AMGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kim:SL VaxiGen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AML Global Portal: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hanmi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Yuhan: Consultancy, Honoraria; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria; BL & H: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Miyazaki:Novartis Pharma KK: Honoraria; NIPPON SHINYAKU CO.,LTD.: Honoraria; Astellas Pharma Inc.: Honoraria; Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Honoraria; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd.: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd.: Honoraria. Platzbecker:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Geron: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sekeres:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Millenium: 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. Malek:Novartis: Current Employment. Scott:Novartis: Current Employment. Niolat:Novartis: Current Employment. Peyrard:Novartis: Current Employment. Ma:Novartis: Current Employment. Kiertsman:Novartis: Current Employment. Stegert:Novartis AG: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Hertle:Novartis Pharma AG: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fenaux:BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Santini:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acceleron: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Menarini: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2020-134718

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2020

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 138, No. Supplement 1 ( 2021-11-05), p. 4669-4669

Abstract: Background: Pts with HR-MDS unfit for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) have poor outcomes and limited survival with single-agent hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapy. Novel treatments that provide durable responses and clinically meaningful survival benefit for pts with HR-MDS are needed. TIM-3 is a promising target in myeloid malignancies as it regulates innate and adaptive immune cells and is expressed on leukemic stem cells (LSCs) and blasts but not normal hematopoietic stem cells. Sabatolimab (MBG453) is a novel immuno-myeloid therapy that binds to TIM-3 on immune cells, facilitating antileukemic immune activation and phagocytic killing of leukemic cells. Sabatolimab also binds to TIM-3 on leukemic cells, potentially impeding self-renewal of LSCs via inhibition of TIM3-galectin-9. In an early phase (ph) trial (NCT03066648) sabatolimab + HMA therapy showed a durable clinical benefit and was well tolerated in pts with HR-MDS (Wei, EHA 2021). Study Design and Methods: The STIMULUS immuno-myeloid clinical trial program is investigating the safety, efficacy, and durability of multiple sabatolimab-based combination therapies in pts with myeloid malignancies. Additional exploration of the mechanism of action of sabatolimab and identification of potential biomarkers predictive of response is planned. This abstract summarizes the design of the 4 ongoing STIMULUS trials in previously untreated adult pts with HR-MDS who are not eligible for intensive chemotherapy (IC) or HSCT. STIMULUS-MDS1 (NCT03946670) is an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Ph II trial evaluating sabatolimab + HMA therapy in pts with very-high, high-, or intermediate-risk (vH/H/IR)-MDS which has completed enrollment (N=127). The primary endpoints of STIMULUS-MDS1 are complete response (CR) and progression-free survival (PFS). STIMULUS-MDS2 (NCT04266301) is an ongoing, international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Ph III trial of sabatolimab + azacitidine (AZA) in pts with vH/H/IR-MDS or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia-2. Target enrollment is ~500 pts. The primary endpoint in this trial is overall survival (OS). Key secondary endpoints are time to definitive deterioration of fatigue; duration of RBC transfusion-free interval; and improvement of fatigue, physical functioning, and emotional functioning. Other endpoints include CR, marrow CR (mCR), partial remission (PR), PFS, and leukemia-free survival (LFS). STIMULUS-MDS2 is a trial that aims to determine if sabatolimab + HMA has a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in OS and quality of life vs HMA alone. STIMULUS MDS-US (NCT04878432) is a US-based, open-label, single-arm, Ph II trial investigating sabatolimab + HMAs of investigators' choice (AZA intravenous [IV] or subcutaneous, decitabine IV or oral decitabine) in pts with vH/H/IR-MDS. Target enrollment is 90 pts. Primary endpoint is safety, which will be evaluated via incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. Secondary endpoints include CR, PFS, LFS, and OS. This trial will provide further understanding of sabatolimab + HMA therapy with additional insight into the safety and efficacy of sabatolimab + oral HMA. STIMULUS-MDS3 (NCT04812548) is an international, open-label, single-arm, Ph II trial that explores triplet therapy of sabatolimab combined with AZA and the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (VEN) in pts with vH/HR-MDS. Part 1 of this trial is a safety run-in comprising 2 safety cohorts with ~6 pts receiving sabatolimab 400 mg + AZA + VEN and ~12 pts receiving sabatolimab 800 mg + AZA + VEN. Primary endpoint of part 1 is safety (dose-limiting toxicities between cycle 1 day 8 and end of cycle 2). If (both 400 and 800 mg) sabatolimab + AZA and VEN are safe, the trial will progress to an expansion cohort (~58 pts) of sabatolimab 800 mg Q4W + AZA + VEN. The primary endpoint is CR. Secondary endpoints include CR + mCR rate, overall response rate (CR + mCR + PR + hematologic improvement), OS, PFS, LFS, and event-free survival. The STIMULUS immuno-myeloid clinical trial program is investigating the efficacy, safety, and improved quality of life of multiple sabatolimab-based combination therapies in pts with myeloid malignancies. The goal of ongoing STIMULUS-MDS trials is to gain insight into the promising durable benefit of sabatolimab combination therapies in pts with HR-MDS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Zeidan: Jazz: Consultancy; Jasper: Consultancy; Pfizer: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Travel support, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Ionis: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Genentech: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Geron: Other: Clinical Trial Committees; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Research Funding; Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioCryst: Other: Clinical Trial Committees; BeyondSpring: Consultancy; Astex: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Aprea: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acceleron: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Research Funding. Al-Kali: Astex: Other: Research support to institution; Novartis: Research Funding. Borate: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicine: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rampal: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Galecto, Inc.: Consultancy; Promedior: Consultancy. Cluzeau: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Honoraria; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Takeda: Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. DeZern: Taiho: 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; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Esteve: Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding. Giagounidis: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Platzbecker: Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Geron: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Sallman: Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Intellia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shattuck Labs: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Aprea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy. Santini: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sanz: Amgen: 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, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, and expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, and expenses, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, and expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Helsinn Healthcare: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Sciences: Other: Travel, accommodations, and expenses. Sekeres: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wei: Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Van Hoef: Novartis Pharma: Current Employment. Nourry-Boulot: Novartis: Current Employment. Sadek: Novartis: Current Employment. Bengoudifa: Novartis Pharma AG: Current Employment. Sachs: Novartis Pharma AG: Current Employment. Sabo: Novartis: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. OffLabel Disclosure: Sabatolimab is a novel immuno-myeloid therapy targeting TIM-3 and is under investigation for the treatment of patients with myeloid malignancies

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2021-145626

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 134, No. Supplement_1 ( 2019-11-13), p. 2999-2999

Abstract: Background: Luspatercept is a first-in-class erythroid maturation agent that binds TGF-β superfamily ligands to reduce aberrant Smad2/3 signaling and enhance late-stage erythropoiesis. The phase 3 MEDALIST trial evaluated luspatercept in pts with RBC transfusion-dependent, IPSS-R-defined very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk MDS with ring sideroblasts (RS+) who were refractory, intolerant, or ineligible to receive erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. This study explored associations of gene mutations, as analyzed by next-generation sequencing (NGS), with response to luspatercept, as well as dynamics of gene mutations on therapy in MEDALIST pts. Methods: DNA was isolated from bone marrow (BM) mononuclear cells from 222 of 229 pts enrolled in the study (148 luspatercept, 74 placebo) at screening and, when available, following treatment. NGS of 23 MDS-relevant genes was performed at screening and every 24 weeks; mean coverage was 1,000-fold and the variant allele frequency (VAF) cutoff was ≥ 1%. BM cell populations were analyzed by cytomorphology. Response criterion of RBC transfusion independence (RBC-TI) of ≥ 8 weeks within the first 24 weeks of treatment was used for correlative analyses. Results: Mutations in SF3B1 were found in 91.0% of pts analyzed at screening (median VAF 42%, range 6-71%), consistent with the study population being RS+. Overall, a median of 2 (range 0-5) of the 23 MDS-relevant genes analyzed were mutated per pt. In addition to SF3B1, the most frequently mutated genes were TET2 (41.9%), DNMT3A (18.9%), ASXL1 (13.1%), and SRSF2 (8.1%). Mutation profiles were similar to those found in previous studies of refractory anemia with RS (RARS; Malcovati L, et al. Blood. 2015;126:233-41) and balanced between luspatercept and placebo arms. Numbers of mutated genes at baseline were distributed similarly in luspatercept responders (R) and non-responders (NR) (Figure A), and comparable response rates were achieved irrespective of number of mutations, with response rates of 36.4%, 34.9%, 42.4%, and 33.3% for pts with 1 mutation, 2 mutations, 3 mutations, and 4 or 5 mutations in the 23 MDS-relevant genes analyzed, respectively. Response to luspatercept was independent of the presence of mutations in any of the genes analyzed individually (Figure B) or when grouped by functional categories (e.g. spliceosome, epigenetic regulation, transcription factor, etc.) (Figure C). Circos plots of co-occurring mutations showed similar mutation profiles in R and NR (Figure D). Response rates were also similar regardless of baseline SF3B1 allelic burden (R: 43%, NR: 42%; P = 0.11). At baseline, BM erythroid precursors were higher in R (R: 32.8%, NR: 26%; P = 0.008; while R and NR had similar levels of RS+ cells [R: 80%, NR: 84%; P = 0.25], Figure E), consistent with the postulated activity of luspatercept on the erythroid lineage. When comparing the frequency of mutation changes in luspatercept- vs placebo-treated pts at week 24 of the study, no statistically significant differences were observed in the frequency of newly acquired mutations (13/126 [10.3%] pts in luspatercept vs 8/64 [12.5%] pts in placebo, P = 0.63) or mutation losses (4/126 [3.2%] in luspatercept vs 5/64 [7.8%] in placebo, P = 0.17). Evaluation of changes in allele burden (median VAF at week 24 vs baseline) for mutations in genes associated with adverse prognosis (ASXL1, SRSF2, U2AF1, NRAS, IDH2, GATA2, TP53, RUNX1, and EZH2; Bejar R. Curr Opin Hematol. 2017;24:73-8) showed no change between luspatercept- or placebo-treated pts (1.01-fold, n = 58 and 0.95-fold, n = 19, respectively, P = 0.69). Conclusions: Pts enrolled in the MEDALIST study had mutations consistent with RS+, lower-risk MDS with a preponderance of SF3B1 mutations; genes associated with poor prognosis (and other genes) were balanced between study arms. RBC-TI responses with luspatercept were achieved regardless of SF3B1 allelic burden, number of baseline mutations, and presence of individual mutations, including adverse mutations, or co-mutations. Disclosures Platzbecker: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dunshee:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Komrokji:DSI: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; JAZZ: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; JAZZ: Speakers Bureau. Mufti:Cellectis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Garcia-Manero:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Buckstein:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria; Acceleron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Díez-Campelo:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sekeres:Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. See:Celgene Corporation: Other: Contractor. Tsai:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Risueño:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties: Named in Celgene patent filings related to predictive patient response biomarkers in hematological malignancies. Ma:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schwickart:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rampersad:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Laadem:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Menezes:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. MacBeth:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Linde:Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership; Abbott Laboratories, Inc.: Equity Ownership; Fibrogen, Inc.: Equity Ownership. Reynolds:Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. List:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Fenaux:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Luspatercept is an investigational therapy that is not approved for any use in any country. Luspatercept is currently being evaluated for potential use in patients with anemia due to myelodysplastic syndromes, beta-thalassemia, or myelofibrosis.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2019-123655

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 132, No. Supplement 1 ( 2018-11-29), p. 1797-1797

Abstract: Lenalidomide (Len) is FDA approved for the treatment of patients (pts) with lower-risk, transfusion-dependent myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) with deletion(5q). It is frequently used in lower-risk pts with non-del(5q) MDS, with a transfusion independence response rate of 27%. Identification of pts who may or may not respond to Len can prevent prolonged exposure to ineffective therapy, avoid toxicities, and decrease unnecessary costs. Clinical or genomic data have limited utility in predicting response/resistance to Len. We developed an unbiased framework to study the association of several mutations/cytogenetic abnormalities in predicting response/resistance to Len in non-del(5q) pts, analogous to Netflix or Amazon's recommender system, in which customers who bought products A and B are likely to buy C: pts who have a molecular/cytogenetic abnormalities in gene A, and B are likely to respond or not respond to Len. Clinical and genomic data from pts with MDS or other myeloid malignancies diagnosed according to 2008 WHO criteria between 02/2004 and 06/2015 were analyzed. Next generation targeted deep sequencing panel of 50 genes that are commonly mutated in MDS and myeloid malignancies was included. Association rules using an apriori algorithm were used to study the relationships among multiple genes/cytogenetic abnormalities and response/resistance to Len. Responses included complete and partial remission and hematologic improvement (CR, PR, HI) per IWG 2006 criteria. Pts with stable disease or progressive disease were considered resistant. Association rules are a machine learning algorithm used to identify the association of variables based on their relationships. Rules with the highest confidence (that an association exists) and highest lift (measuring the strength of the association) were chosen. Of 139 pts treated with Len as monotherapy or in combination for at least 2 cycles included, 118 (85%) had MDS and 21 (15%) had other myeloid malignancies. Median age at diagnosis was 69 years (range 20-90 yrs) and 45% were female. Risk stratification by IPSS-R for MDS pts; 51.5 % had very low/low risk, 19.5% intermediate, and 29% high and very high risk disease. Most pts 100 (73%) had non-del(5q) abnormalities, others (39) had del(5q). Cytogenetic abnormalities for the non-del(5q) cohort included 58 pts with normal karyotype (NK), 19 pts with complex karyotype (CK), 4 pts with trisomy 8, 3 pts with del(7q) abnormalities, and 15 pts with other abnormalities. A total of 108 (79%) pts were treated with Len monotherapy. The median duration of treatment was 6 months (range 2- 66 m). Response rates were 46% (n=46) in the non-del(5q) cohort and 74% (n=29) in del(5q). Association rules identified the following combinations of genomic/cytogenetic abnormalities to predict response to Len in non-del(5q): (DDX41, NK) and (MECOM, KDM6A/KDM6B). The combination of the following abnormalities predicted resistance (ASXL1, TET2, NK), (DNMT3A, SF3B1), (TP53, del(5q)+CK), (STAG2, IDH 1/2, NK), (EZH2, NK), (BCOR/ BCORL1, NK), (JAK2, TET2, NK), (U2AF1, +/- ETV6, NK). [Table 1] Only TP53/CK mutations predicted resistance to Len in del(5q) pts. These associations are present in 39% of pts with non-del(5q), and have a specificity of 77%, with a negative predictive value and sensitivity=100%. The algorithm predicted response/resistance to Len with 82% accuracy. The median OS for non-del(5q) pts was 33.2m [95% CI: 19.9, 40.5]. The median OS for responders was 54.8 compared to 24.7 m for non-responders p=.017. The median OS for rules that predicted response was 70.3 m (95% CI: 70.3-NA). The median OS for pts with del(5q) + CK with a TP53 mutation was 9.8m. Several genomic combinations predicted very poor overall survival, including: (ETV6, U2AF1, NK), (BCOR/ BCORL1, NK), (EZH2, NK) , (JAK2, TET2, NK), with median OS of 10.7 m, 7.6 m, 10.8 m and 7.6 m, respectively. [Figure 1] Genomic biomarkers can identify 39% of non-del(5q) MDS pts who may or may not respond to treatment with very high accuracy. Although these abnormalities are only present in a subset of pts, treatment options for these pts can be tailored, by offering alternative therapies to pts with lower-risk disease who may not respond to Len, and preferentially offering Len to those who are more likely to respond. This study highlights how advanced analytic technologies such as machine learning can translate genomic/clinic data into useful clinical tools. Disclosures Sekeres: Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gerds:Celgene: Consultancy; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Carraway:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Balaxa: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; FibroGen: Consultancy; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Santini:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Otsuka: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Maciejewski:Ra Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy; Ra Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy; Apellis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Apellis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Nazha:MEI: Consultancy.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2018-99-114681

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2018

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 140, No. Supplement 1 ( 2022-11-15), p. 6976-6978

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2022-158671

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2022

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood Advances, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 6, No. 17 ( 2022-09-13), p. 5132-5145

Abstract: PANTHER is a global, randomized phase 3 trial of pevonedistat+azacitidine (n = 227) vs azacitidine monotherapy (n = 227) in patients with newly diagnosed higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS; n = 324), higher-risk chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (n = 27), or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with 20% to 30% blasts (n = 103). The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). In the intent-to-treat population, the median EFS was 17.7 months with pevonedistat+azacitidine vs 15.7 months with azacitidine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.968; 95% confidence interval [CI] , 0.757-1.238; P = .557) and in the higher-risk MDS cohort, median EFS was 19.2 vs 15.6 months (HR, 0.887; 95% CI, 0.659-1.193; P = .431). Median overall survival (OS) in the higher-risk MDS cohort was 21.6 vs 17.5 months (HR, 0.785; P = .092), and in patients with AML with 20% to 30% blasts was 14.5 vs 14.7 months (HR, 1.107; P = .664). In a post hoc analysis, median OS in the higher-risk MDS cohort for patients receiving & gt;3 cycles was 23.8 vs 20.6 months (P = .021) and for & gt;6 cycles was 27.1 vs 22.5 months (P = .008). No new safety signals were identified, and the azacitidine dose intensity was maintained. Common hematologic grade ≥3 treatment emergent adverse events were anemia (33% vs 34%), neutropenia (31% vs 33%), and thrombocytopenia (30% vs 30%). These results underscore the importance of large, randomized controlled trials in these heterogeneous myeloid diseases and the value of continuing therapy for & gt;3 cycles. The trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03268954.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2473-9529 , 2473-9537

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2022007334

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2022

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2876449-3

In: Leukemia Research, Elsevier BV, Vol. 99 ( 2020-12), p. 106472-

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0145-2126

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/j.leukres.2020.106472

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2020

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2008028-1