Abstract: Background: Based on a model suggesting leukemia can be driven by combined effect of mutations in an epigenetic gene (DNMT3) and Ras, the combination of a hypomethylating agent (HMA) such as azacitidine (AZA) and a Ras mimetic such as rigosertib (RIG) may have enhanced activity in both MDS and AML. The mechanism of action for RIG (Athuluri-Divakar et al, Cell 2016) documents its interference with the RAS-binding domains of RAF kinases and inhibition of the RAS-RAF-MEK and the PI3Ks pathways. In vitro, the combination of RIG with AZA was found to act synergistically to inhibit growth and to induce apoptosis of leukemic cells in a sequence-dependent manner (exposure to RIG first, followed by AZA) (Skidan et al, AACR 2006). Rigosertib's low bone marrow toxicity in pre-clinical assays, effective inhibition of human hematopoietic tumor cell lines, and its synergy with AZA suggests the potential value of combination treatment for patients (pts) with MDS. Phase I results of the current clinical study in pts with MDS or AML showed the combination of oral RIG and standard-dose AZA to be well-tolerated with evidence of efficacy (Navada et al, Blood 2014). The phase II portion of the study was initiated to further evaluate the combination in pts with MDS. Methods: Phase II results are presented for HMA-treatment-naïve MDS pts and for those with MDS failing to respond to or progressed on a prior HMA. Oral RIG was administered twice daily on Day 1-21 of a 28-day cycle at the recommended Phase II dose (RPTD: 560 mg qAM and 280 mg qPM). AZA 75 mg/m2/d SC or IV was administered for 7 days starting on Day 8. A CBC was performed weekly and a bone marrow aspirate and/or biopsy were performed at baseline, D29, and then every 8 weeks thereafter. Results: The combination of oral RIG and injectable AZA has been administered to a total of 54 pts, of whom 40 were pts with MDS including HMA-treatment-naïve (N=23) and previously HMA treated pts (N=17). Median age was 66 years (range 25-85); 73% of pts were male; and ECOG performance status was 0, 1, and 2 in 23%, 73%, and 5%, respectively. 17 pts received prior HMA therapy: 12 AZA, 4 decitabine, and 1 both. Patients have received 1-36+ cycles of treatment (median, 6 cycles), with a median duration of treatment of 25 weeks (range 4 to 145+ weeks). 8 (20%) and 2 (5%) of pts have been treated for more than 1 and 2 years, respectively. Table 1 shows the response per IWG 2006 criteria (Cheson, Blood 2006) among 33 evaluable patients. The response per IWG 2006 was complete remission (CR) in 8 (24%), concurrent marrow CR and hematologic improvement (HI) in 9 (27%), marrow CR alone in 7 (21%), and HI alone in 1 (3%). When overall response is defined as CR plus PR plus HI - responses with improvement in marrow function and thus either normalization of the peripheral blood count or lineage improvement - defined here as Clinical Benefit Response - 55% of all evaluable pts and 70% of the evaluable HMA-treatment-naïve patients showed responses meeting these criteria. Median time to initial response was 2 cycles (2.2 months), and median time to best response was 3 cycles (3.3 months). Median duration of response was 8 months for CR, 14.3 months for marrow CR, 7.4 months for erythroid response, 8 months for platelet response, and 6.2 months for neutrophil response. Clinical response is classified by IPSS-R risk categories below. The most frequently reported adverse events are nausea (41%), fatigue (39%), diarrhoea (37%), constipation (37%), dysuria (28%), decreased appetite (28%), haematuria (24%, 8% Grade 3), pyrexia (24%), dizziness (22%), thrombocytopenia (20%), back pain (20%), dyspnoea (20%), and cough (20%). Eight deaths were reported on study with most common causes including infection and progression of disease. Conclusions: The combination oforalRIG and standard-dose AZA was well tolerated in repetitive cycles in pts with MDS. Response per IWG 2006 criteria was observed both in HMA-treatment-naïve patients (85%) and in patients after failure of prior HMA therapy (62%); employing Clinical Benefit Response as the criteria, these groups had 70% and 31% response, respectively. These clinical results confirm the preclinical synergistic interaction with the combination of RIG and AZA reported by Skidan et al, and suggest that the combination can overcome clinical resistance to HMAs. Based on these results, a Phase III study of the combination of oral RIG and AZA in patients with MDS is planned. Disclosures Navada: Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Daver:Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kiromic: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. DiNardo:Agios: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: advisory board, Research Funding. Konopleva:Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Stemline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssen,Novartis, Astex, Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Petrone:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Zbyszewski:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Fruchtman:Onconova: Employment. Silverman:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Patents & Royalties: Co-Patent holder for the combination of azacitidine and rigosertib, Research Funding.

Abstract: Background: Rigosertib (RIG) is a Ras-mimetic that inhibits the PI3K and PLK cellular signaling pathways by binding directly to the Ras-binding Domain found in Ras effector proteins. It has been tested as a single agent in patients (pts) after failure of hypomethylating agents (HMAs). In vitro, the combination of RIG with azacitidine (AZA) inhibits growth and induces apoptosis of leukemic cells in a sequence-dependent fashion (RIG administered prior to AZA) (Skidan et al 2006). Phase I results of this study in pts with MDS or AML showed combination of oral RIG and standard-dose AZA to be well-tolerated with evidence of efficacy (Navada et al, Blood 2014). Phase II was initiated to further study the combination in pts with MDS. Methods: Results from pts in Phase II with MDS previously untreated with an HMA, or who had failed to respond to or progressed on a prior HMA, are presented, while response data from Phase I MDS pts are updated. Pts with CMML are analyzed separately. Oral RIG was administered twice daily on Day 1-21 of a 28-day cycle at the recommended Phase II dose (RPTD: 560 mg qAM and 280 mg qPM). AZA 75 mg/m2/d SC or IV was administered for 7 days starting on Day 8. A CBC was performed weekly and a bone marrow aspirate and/or biopsy was performed at baseline, day 29, and then every 8 weeks thereafter. Results: The combination of oral RIG and AZA has been administered to a total of 45 pts within Phase I (N=18) and Phase II (N=27). Pts were classified into the following MDS risk categories per the IPSS (Greenberg et al, Blood 1997): intermediate-1 (4), intermediate-2 (10), high-risk (14), and IPSS classification pending (4). Five pts had CMML and 8 had AML. Median age was 66 years; 69% of pts were male; and ECOG performance status was 0, 1, and 2 in 27%, 67%, and 6%, respectively. Twelve pts [MDS (9), CMML (3)] received prior HMA therapy: AZA (11 pts), decitabine (1 pts). Patients have received 1-21+ cycles of treatment to date (median, 3 cycles), with median duration of treatment of 14 weeks. Among 15 evaluable MDS pts treated with the RPTD (1 pt in Phase I, 14 pts in Phase II), marrow responses were observed in 10: marrow CR (mCR) (8), marrow PR (mPR) (2). Responses according to IWG criteria were observed in 10 pts: complete remission (CR) (1), mCR (7), hematologic improvement (HI) (2). Table 1. Responses for MDS Patients Treated at the Recommended Phase II Dose Pt Prior HMA Best BMBL at Nadir1 IWG Response2 Hematologic Improvement 102-008 None mCR mCR Platelet 101-010 None mCR CR Erythroid & Neutrophil 101-011 None mCR mCR None 101-013 None mCR mCR Erythroid 102-010 None SD SD None 101-014 AZA PD PD None 102-011 AZA mPR HI Erythroid & Platelet 101-016 AZA SD SD None 101-017 AZA mCR mCR None 102-013 None NE NE NE 101-019 None SD SD None 101-021 None PD PD None 101-024 None mCR mCR None 101-022 AZA mCR mCR None 101-025 None mCR mCR None 101-026 AZA NE NE NE 101-027 None NE NE NE 102-016 None mPR HI Platelet 1 Silverman et al, Hematol Oncol 2014 2 IWG = International Working Group (Cheson et al, Blood 2006) NE = not evaluable BMBL = bone marrow blast Overall, in pts with MDS treated on Phase I and Phase II, marrow responses were observed in 15 out of 20 evaluable pts: mCR (13), mPR (2). Responses according to IWG 2006 criteria were observed in 14 out of 19 evaluable MDS pts: CR (2), mCR (10), HI (2). Among the 7 evaluable pts with MDS in both the Phase I and Phase II who had failed to respond or progressed on prior treatment with an HMA, 5 had a response after RIG was added: CR (1), mCR (3), HI (1). Analyzed as a separate subgroup, 2 out of 5 (40%) pts with CMML had a mCR. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) in Cycle 1 included nausea (21%) and fatigue (15%), which were also the most frequent AEs in all cycles (fatigue, 28%; nausea, 26%). Six deaths have been observed so far. Three pts were treated for more than 1 year and continue on study. Conclusions: The combination oforalrigosertib and standard-dose AZA was well tolerated in repetitive cycles in pts with MDS. Marrow CR was observed in 65% of pts, both with de novo MDS and after failure of prior HMA therapy. In pts who received the RPTD, 67% of pts with MDS had a bone marrow blast and IWG response. These results suggest potential synergistic interaction of the combination and support continued study of this unique combination in patients with MDS. Disclosures Silverman: Onconova Therapeutics Inc: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: co-patent holder on combination of rigosertib and azacitdine, Research Funding. Daver:ImmunoGen: Other: clinical trial, Research Funding. DiNardo:Novartis: Research Funding. Konopleva:Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Stemline: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Threshold: Research Funding. Pemmaraju:Stemline: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; LFB: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fenaux:CELGENE: Honoraria, Research Funding; JANSSEN: Honoraria, Research Funding; AMGEN: Honoraria, Research Funding; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fruchtman:Onconova Therapeutics Inc: Employment. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics Inc: Employment.

Abstract: Background:Rigosertib is a small molecule anti-cancer agent targeting PI3/polo-like kinase pathways that promotes G2/M arrest and has effects on the B-Raf and Ras pathways. It is currently being tested as a single agent with the intravenous (IV) formulation in patients (pts) who have relapsed or are refractory to hypomethylating agents (HMAs) as well as with the oral formulation in lower-risk, red-cell transfusion-dependent MDS patients. Azacitidine (AZA) is first-line therapy for pts with higher-risk MDS. In vitro, the combination of rigosertib with AZA acts synergistically to inhibit growth and induce apoptosis of leukemic cells (Skidan et al 2006). This effect appears to be sequence dependent, requiring exposure to rigosertib first, followed by AZA. These nonclinical results provided the rationale to combine the 2 agents in a phase I/II study in pts with MDS and AML. Methods: Pts with MDS and non-proliferative AML, who were previously untreated or had failed or progressed on an HMA were included in the phase I component of the study. Oral rigosertib was administered twice daily from day 1 through day 21 of a 28-d cycle. AZA 75 mg/m2/d was administered for 7 days starting on day 8 of the 28-d cycle. Pts were entered in 3 escalating-dose cohorts of rigosertib in a classic 3+3 design: [1] 140 mg twice daily; [2] 280 mg twice daily; [3] 560 mg qAM and 280 mg qPM. A CBC was performed weekly and a bone marrow (BM) aspirate and/or biopsy was performed at baseline and every 4-8 weeks afterwards. Results: Eighteen pts have been treated with the combination of oral rigosertib and AZA. Pts had diagnoses of intermediate-1 MDS (3), intermediate-2 MDS (6), high-risk MDS (2), CMML (1), and AML (6); median age was 70.5 years; 61% of pts were male. Pts have received 1-10+ cycles of treatment with the total number of cycles administered thus far being 58. Cytogenetic profiles by IPSS were good (8 pts), poor (8 pts), and intermediate (2 pts). 11of 18 patients were transfusion dependent at baseline [RBC (11), platelet (6)]. One patient became RBC transfusion independent after 3 cycles of treatment. 5 additional patients have had a reduction in their RBC and platelet transfusion requirements. 56% of patients received prior treatment with HMAs: AZA (6 pts), decitabine (4 pts). The most frequent adverse events (AEs) in Cycle 1 included constipation, diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, hypotension, and pneumonia. The AEs did not differ significantly among the 3 cohorts. Elevation in creatinine in 1 pt in cohort 1 was a possibly related grade 3 dose-limiting toxicity that required subsequent expansion of the cohort. Drug-related dysuria/cystitis was not reported in this pt population. Responses according to IWG 2006 criteria were observed in the BM and peripheral blood: Complete Response (CR) (1 pt), Cri (CR with incomplete blood count recovery) (4 pts), stable disease (2), hematologic improvement-erythroid (1). Six pts received fewer than 4 cycles of treatment and are too early to evaluate. Six pts came off study for the following reasons: progression of disease (1), pt request (1), death from pneumonia (2), received stem cell transplant (1), persistent fungal pneumonia (1). Two evaluable pts have responded to the combination after progression or failure on HMA alone. Conclusions: The combination oforalrigosertib at 560/280 mg BID (recommended phase II dose) and standard-dose AZA can be safely administered and appears to be well tolerated in repetitive cycles in pts with MDS and non-proliferative AML. The AE profile does not differ significantly from that of AZA alone. Data from the Phase I component of this study suggest activity in patients with MDS after HMA failure. Additional data are required to evaluate this observation. The Phase II segment of this study is underway to further assess the response of the combination. Table Patient ID Diagnosis Prior HMA % Blasts in BM at Baseline % Blasts in BM after Treatment IWG Response 1 MDS No 2 1 CRi 2 AML No 40 0 CRi 3 AML No 22 N/A NE 4 MDS Azacitidine 0 0 NE 5 AML No 59 N/A NE 6 MDS No 21 〈 5 CRi 7 MDS No 2 1 CR 8 MDS No 2.5 2 SD 9 AML Decitabine 25 N/A NE 10 MDS Decitabine 12 3 CRi 11 CMML Azacitidine 2 3 SD 12 MDS Azacitidine 4 1 HI-E 13 AML Azacitidine 47 40 TE 14 AML Decitabine 7 7 TE 15 MDS No 9 5 TE 16 AML No 25 6 TE 17 AML No 15 19 TE 18 AML Azacitidine 64 45 TE IWG = International Working Group CR = Complete Response CRi = Complete Response with incomplete blood count recovery NE = Not Evaluable SD = Stable Disease HI-E = Hematologic Improvement - Erythroid TE = Too Early Disclosures Wilhelm: Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Demakos:Onconova: Consultancy. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Silverman:Onconova: with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Patents & Royalties.