Abstract: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.

Abstract:Hypomethylating agents (HMAs), such as azsacitidine (AZA), are considered the standard of care for patients with International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Intermediate-2 (Int-2) or High-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (CMML) who are not candidates for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) (Kantarjian et al, 2006; Silverman et al, 2006; Fenaux et al, 2009). Therapy with AZA prolongs overall survival (OS) in this group of patients (including acute myeloid leukaemia [AML] with 20–30% blasts).(Fenaux et al, 2009) Nevertheless, these agents are not curative, with a median OS of 5·6 months for patients that fail AZA therapy. (Prebet et al, 2011) Many centres have used HMAs as a bridge to alloSCT in MDS patients in an attempt to reduce tumour burden and prolong the time to AML progression. (Damaj et al, 2012) However, this strategy leaves patients at risk of AZA treatment failure, which may delay or prevent subsequent alloSCT. Recent data, in a very small number of patients, have demonstrated poor response rates to salvage therapy with intensive chemotherapy after AZA failure. (Prebet et al, 2011, 2012; Duong et al, 2013) This retrospective analysis evaluated the outcome of 18 patients with MDS, CMML and AML, who failed AZA therapy, whilst awaiting a donor to be found for alloSCT, and subsequently received induction chemotherapy (between 1 July, 2009 and 31 December, 2012) at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Seventeen of these patients received AZA as a bridge to alloSCT, while awaiting a donor to be found. Inclusion criteria were: (i) diagnosis of AML with 20–30% blasts, MDS or CMML by the World Health Organization classification, (ii) IPSS Int-2 or High-risk disease (Greenberg et al, 1997), and (iii) at least 1 cycle of AZA received. For MDS and AML patients, responses were defined according to the International Working Group Criteria.(Cheson et al, 2003, 2006) Survival was calculated from the date of AZA failure, defined as the date of evaluation of response after the last cycle of AZA. Primary AZA failure was defined as the absence of any response to AZA and secondary AZA failure as disease progression after a first response. Kaplan-Meier curves and median survival times were used to summarize the OS and time to progression outcomes. Continuous patient demographics were summarized by their median and range, while categorical demographics were summarized by their frequency and proportion. Patient characteristics are listed in Table 1. Only one patient was over the age of 70 years. Of the 18 patients, 44% had secondary or therapy-related (s/t-) MDS or AML at the time of AZA therapy (including two patients who received a prior autologous SCT [autoSCT] for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and AML [different karyotype when developed MDS] and 1 an autoSCT followed by syngeneic alloSCT for multiple myeloma); 67% had IPSS poor-risk cytogenetics. Median number of AZA cycles received was 5·5 (range 1–18) with seven patients (39%) achieving a response (including one complete remission [CR], one marrow CR and haematological improvement [HI], and five HI). Nine patients were primary AZA failures and seven secondary AZA failures. No patients were intolerant of AZA. Two patients were taken off AZA after 1 cycle of therapy to receive induction chemotherapy as a human leucocyte antigen-identical donor was found. At the time of induction chemotherapy, 15 patients had s/t-AML (12 had progressed from MDS), two had refractory anaemia with excess blasts type 2 (RAEB-2), and one CMML-2. Two patients with AML received cytoreductive therapy prior to induction chemotherapy: 1 with single agent cytarabine followed by hydroxycarbamide and 1 with hydroxycarbamide alone. Cytogenetic risk, as defined by the Medical Research Council AML classification, was intermediate in 4 and poor in 11 patients, respectively. Induction chemotherapy regimens are listed in Table 2. The overall response rate was 50% and 43·8% in all patients and AZA failures only, respectively (Table 3). The CR rate was 22% and 25%, CR with incomplete platelet recovery (CRp) was 6% and 0%, CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) was 17% and 12·5%, and morphological leukaemic-free state 17% and 6·3% in all patients and in AZA failures only, respectively. One patient in CRi relapsed after 2·5 months and achieved CR2 after salvage chemotherapy with mitoxantrone, etoposide and cytarabine (NOVE-HiDAc). All seven patients achieved a CR/CRp/CRi after one induction chemotherapy cycle; four of these patients had intermediate-risk and 1 poor-risk cytogenetics, with no karyotype results available for the remaining two patients. Three patients with AML who were primary refractory to initial daunorubicin and cytarabine induction failed to achieve a CR with NOVE-HiDAc salvage chemotherapy. Four patients died during induction. Response duration for patients who achieved a CR/CRi/CRp was 4 months (range, 1·7–9 months). Four of nine responders received an alloSCT, with the remaining five patients relapsing (three while awaiting an alloSCT). After a median follow-up of 5·2 months, 17 patients have died. The one surviving patient has been lost to follow-up 25 weeks after induction chemotherapy. There was no difference in OS between patients who received an alloSCT compared with those who did not (P = 0·55). All four patients who received an alloSCT died: two from relapsed AML, one from graft-versus-host disease and one from progressive respiratory failure. Median OS for all patients was 6·2 months (Fig 1). Median OS for patients who achieved a CR/CRi/CRp was 11·1 months, after a median follow-up of 10·2 months. No pretreatment variables were associated with improved OS or likelihood of achieving a CR, although the patient numbers were small. Contrary to prior reports (Prebet et al, 2011, 2012), our results demonstrate that induction chemotherapy can yield responses in a significant number of patients who have failed AZA therapy. However, response duration and OS remain poor for AZA treatment failures. Therefore, despite retrospective studies suggesting that it is not detrimental to receive hypomethylating agents prior to alloSCT (Damaj et al, 2012), one should not delay alloSCT for eligible patients with IPSS Int-2 and High–risk MDS until a loss or lack of response to AZA is observed. For those transplant-eligible patients who have a donor and may require tumour burden reduction prior to alloSCT, induction chemotherapy may be preferable to AZA. Patients who fail AZA therapy should be enrolled onto clinical trials. KWLY treated patients, conceived research, collected and analysed data and wrote the manuscript. JB, ADS, VG, MDM and ACS treated patients and participated in writing of the manuscript. RDB and WX analysed the data. KWLY, JB, and ACS received honoraria from Celgene; KWLY and ACS received research support from Celgene. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Translational Research on Azacitidine Post-Remission Therapy of Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Elderly Patients (QOL-ONE Trans-2)

Novel Gene Mutations Associated with Disease-Free Survival in Elderly Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Receiving First-Line Induction-Consolidation with or without Azacitidine Post-Remission Treatment

Safety, Efficacy and Biological Predictors of Response to Sequential Azacitidine and Lenalidomide for Elderly Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Molecular remission at the end of treatment is a necessary goal for a good outcome in ELN favorable-risk acute myeloid leukemia: a real-life analysis on 201 patients by the Rete Ematologica Lombarda network

Oral azacitidine modulates the bone marrow microenvironment in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia in remission: A subanalysis from the QUAZAR AML-001 trial

Sequential Azacitidine and Lenalidomide in Elderly Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Completed Results of the Phase I Study.

Azacitidine and lenalidomide combination: a novel relapse prophylaxis regimen after allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with acute myeloid leukemia

Molecular Characterization of Clinical Response and Relapse in Patients with IDH1m ND-AML Treated with Ivo+AZA in the AGILE Study

Impact of Genetic Abnormalities and Measurable Residual Disease Levels on Outcome in Patients with MDS/AML Pre-Emptively Treated with Azacitidine: Correlative Results of the Prospective RELAZA2 Trial

Accrual Barriers and Detection of Early Toxicity Signal in Older Less-Fit Patients Treated with Azacitidine and Nivolumab for Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) or High-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) in the SWOG 1612 Platform Randomized Phase II/III Clinical Trial

Prognostic impact of NPM1 and FLT3 mutations in patients with AML in first remission treated with oral azacitidine

Treatment of Molecular Relapses in Pediatric AML Saves Toxicities Prior to Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HSCT) - Results of AMoRe2017 Trial

Azacitidine Combined with Interferon Α for Preemptive Treatment of AML/MDS after Allogeneic Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation：a Prospecitive Phase II Study

Comparison of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation and Chemotherapy As Post-Remission Strategy in Elderly Patients with Non-M3 AML in CR1: Retrospective Analysis with 1036 Patients.

Reduced dose azacitidine plus venetoclax as maintenance therapy in acute myeloid leukaemia following intensive or low-intensity induction: a single-centre, single-arm, phase 2 trial

Integrated transcriptomic and genomic analysis improves prediction of complete remission and survival in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia

AML-063: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Venetoclax with Azacitidine Versus Azacitidine in Treatment-Naïve Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Ineligible for Intensive Therapy-Viale-A

Subcutaneous azacitidine maintenance in transplant-ineligible patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a single-center retrospective study

Salvage Induction Chemotherapy after Azacitdine Treatment Failure in Patients Who Received Azacitidine As a Bridge to Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation

Single-agent 5-azacytidine as post-transplant maintenance in high-risk myeloid malignancies undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation

Response Rates and Transplantation Impact in Patients with Relapsed Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia