Abstract: Introduction Aberrant DNA methylation is a common feature of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and increases with age. DNMT inhibitors such as Azacitidine (AZA) can induce meaningful responses and remissions in AML as monotherapy. The combination of AZA with standard chemotherapy (7+3) has not been tested in a randomized trial. Patients and study design The AML-AZA trial compared AZA directly followed by standard induction therapy, AZA followed by standard consolidation, and further Azacitdine maintenance with standard induction and consolidation without AZA in older patients with AML. All patients received standard Cytarabine (100 mg/sqm) and Daunorubicin (60 mg/sqm) induction (“7+3”) and up to two cycles of intermediate dose Cytarabine (1 g/sqm q12hr days 1, 3, 5) as consolidation therapy. AZA (75 mg/sqm for 5 days) preceded each therapy cycle in the AZA arm. In addition, AZA maintenance for up to 1 year was also scheduled for patients in the AZA arm. 105 patients were randomized to receive AZA plus Cytarabine plus Daunorubicin as induction therapy (AZA + 7+3) and 109 patients to receive 7+3 only (control group). Median age was 70 years in both treatment arms. Patient cohorts were well balanced with regard to blast counts in bone marrow, secondary versus de novo AML and molecular genetics risk group. More patients in the AZA + 7+3 arm (39/105; 37.1%) than in the control group (25/109; 22.9%) showed high risk cytogenetics (p=0.057). Event free survival (EFS) was the primary end point. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), complete remission (CR) rate, toxicity and different treatment response according to molecular markers. Results Overall, 214 of 216 planned patients were enrolled into the AML-AZA trial. Due to a higher number of severe adverse events (SAE), AZA administration was stopped after recruitment of 214 patients whereas chemotherapy was continued as planned. Percentages of patients in the AZA arm with AZA doses as initially planned were as follows: 99% for first induction cycle, 72% for the second induction cycle. AZA as maintenance therapy for at least one cycle was delivered to 18% of patients in the AZA group. At least one SAE occurred in 51% of AZA + 7+3 patients compared to 31% of 7+3 patients (p=0.005). Cardiac disorders with CTCAE grade 3-5 occurred more frequently in the AZA + 7+3 arm (n = 15) than in the 7+3 arm (n = 6) (not significant). Leukopenia was prolonged by one day (median 23 vs 22 days) in the AZA + 7+3 group (p=0.043), whereas time of thrombocytopenia was not different. The early death rates at 30, 60 and 90 days did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Efficacy analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Median EFS as the primary endpoint was 6 months in both treatment arms (p=0.96). Median OS was 16 months for patients treated with AZA + 7+3 and 21 months for 7+3 (p=0.35). Median relapse free survival was 12 months in both treatment arms (p=0.95). 48 of 100 patients (48%) in the AZA + 7+3 arm achieved complete remission (CR) after induction therapy versus 57 of 109 patients (52%) in the 7+3 arm (p=0.58). DNMT3A exon 23 mutations were detected in 30 out of 162 analyzed patients. Exploratory analyses were performed to detect a potential interaction between AZA + 7+3 response and DNMT3A mutation status. Trends for improved EFS and OS were noted for AZA + 7+3 treatment in DNMT3A mutated patients. Conclusion AZA as addition prior to standard induction and consolidation chemotherapy does not prolong EFS and OS in unselected older AML patients and it is more toxic. However, a trend towards better efficacy in patients with DNMT3A mutation was observed and should be further explored. Disclosures Müller-Tidow: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Thiede:AgenDix GmbH: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Illumina: Research Support, Research Support Other. Kiehl:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Brümmendorf:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Ehninger:GEMoaB GmbH: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties.

Abstract: Mutations of the isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 (IDH1) and IDH2 genes are among the most frequent alterations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and can be found in ∼20% of patients at diagnosis. Among 4930 patients (median age, 56 years; interquartile range, 45-66) with newly diagnosed, intensively treated AML, we identified IDH1 mutations in 423 (8.6%) and IDH2 mutations in 575 (11.7%). Overall, there were no differences in response rates or survival for patients with mutations in IDH1 or IDH2 compared with patients without mutated IDH1/2. However, distinct clinical and comutational phenotypes of the most common subtypes of IDH1/2 mutations could be associated with differences in outcome. IDH1-R132C was associated with increased age, lower white blood cell (WBC) count, less frequent comutation of NPM1 and FLT3 internal tandem mutation (ITD) as well as with lower rate of complete remission and a trend toward reduced overall survival (OS) compared with other IDH1 mutation variants and wild-type (WT) IDH1/2. In our analysis, IDH2-R172K was associated with significantly lower WBC count, more karyotype abnormalities, and less frequent comutations of NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD. Among patients within the European LeukemiaNet 2017 intermediate- and adverse-risk groups, relapse-free survival and OS were significantly better for those with IDH2-R172K compared with WT IDH, providing evidence that AML with IDH2-R172K could be a distinct entity with a specific comutation pattern and favorable outcome. In summary, the presented data from a large cohort of patients with IDH1/2 mutated AML indicate novel and clinically relevant findings for the most common IDH mutation subtypes.

Abstract: Biallelic mutations of the CEBPA gene (CEBPAbi) define a distinct entity associated with favorable prognosis; however, the role of monoallelic mutations (CEBPAsm) is poorly understood. We retrospectively analyzed 4708 adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who had been recruited into the Study Alliance Leukemia trials, to investigate the prognostic impact of CEBPAsm. CEBPA mutations were identified in 240 patients (5.1%): 131 CEBPAbi and 109 CEBPAsm (60 affecting the N-terminal transactivation domains [CEBPAsmTAD] and 49 the C-terminal DNA-binding or basic leucine zipper region [CEBPAsmbZIP] ). Interestingly, patients carrying CEBPAbi or CEBPAsmbZIP shared several clinical factors: they were significantly younger (median, 46 and 50 years, respectively) and had higher white blood cell (WBC) counts at diagnosis (median, 23.7 × 109/L and 35.7 × 109/L) than patients with CEBPAsmTAD (median age, 63 years, median WBC 13.1 × 109/L; P & lt; .001). Co-mutations were similar in both groups: GATA2 mutations (35.1% CEBPAbi; 36.7% CEBPAsmbZIP vs 6.7% CEBPAsmTAD; P & lt; .001) or NPM1 mutations (3.1% CEBPAbi; 8.2% CEBPAsmbZIP vs 38.3% CEBPAsmTAD; P & lt; .001). CEBPAbi and CEBPAsmbZIP, but not CEBPAsmTAD were associated with significantly improved overall (OS; median 103 and 63 vs 13 months) and event-free survival (EFS; median, 20.7 and 17.1 months vs 5.7 months), in univariate and multivariable analyses. Additional analyses revealed that the clinical and molecular features as well as the favorable survival were confined to patients with in-frame mutations in bZIP (CEBPAbZIP-inf). When patients were classified according to CEBPAbZIP-inf and CEBPAother (including CEBPAsmTAD and non-CEBPAbZIP-inf), only patients bearing CEBPAbZIP-inf showed superior complete remission rates and the longest median OS and EFS, arguing for a previously undefined prognostic role of this type of mutation.

Abstract: Purpose Mutations of the isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 (IDH1) and IDH2 genes are one of the most frequent alterations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and can be found in ~20% of patients at diagnosis. Several IDH inhibitors are currently in late stage clinical development with Enasidenib, an IDH2 inhibitor, being recently approved by the FDA. Previous analyses have reported differential impact on response to chemotherapy and outcome, depending on the IDH-mutation type, co-occurring mutations and cytogenetic abnormalities, as well as the variant allele frequency (VAF) of IDH mutations. In order to better understand its prognostic role, we analyzed newly diagnosed AML patients enrolled in prospective trials of the Study Alliance Leukemia (SAL) to investigate the impact of IDH1/2 mutations on outcome. Patients and Methods All AML patients consecutively enrolled into intensive AML treatment protocols of the SAL or into the SAL registry were included in this analysis. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) on an Illumina MiSeq-system was performed to detect IDH1/2 mutations using pre-treatment samples. Overall survival (OS) and response to therapy were analyzed for all patients with intensive treatment and according to the mutational status. Results Overall, samples of 3898 patients were analyzed. The median follow-up was 91 months (95% CI 87.2 - 93.9). Patients' characteristics are shown in Tbl.1. Three-hundred twenty-nine patients (8.4%) had IDH1 mutations and 423 (11%) had IDH2 mutations; both mutations were found in 12 pts, so the overall mutation rate in IDH1 and 2 was 19% (740/3898 patients). Of the IDH1 variants, the most common ones were the R132C found in 143 patients (43%) and R132H in 137 patients (42%). For IDH2, 324 patients had the R140Q (77%) and 80 patients the R172K (19%) variant. According to the two main variants of the more common IDH2 mutations, as reported before, the IDH2 R172K was mutually exclusive with NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD mutations. Overall, there was a trend for increased OS for patients with IDH2 R172K (26 vs. 15 months) as compared to those with R140Q. Considering only patients with a normal karyotype and no NPM1/FLT3-ITD mutation, these patients (n=27) had a highly significant better OS than patients with IDH2 R140Q (46.3 vs. 13.1 months, p=.012), supporting the findings published by Papaemmanuil et al. (NEJM 2016). In IDH1-mutated patients, we observed statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two most common mutation types, IDH1 R132C and R132H. Patients carrying the R132C mutation were older (62 vs. 55 years, p=.001), had lower WBC (3.6 vs. 21 Gpt/L, p≤.001) and were less likely to have a normal karyotype (43% vs. 66%, p=.002), NPM1 (23% vs. 66%, p= 〈 .001), and FLT3-ITD mutations (8% vs. 27%, p 〈 .001) than those with the R132H variant. In univariate testing, the CR rate was also statistically significant lower in patients with IDH1 R132C (53% vs. 72%, p≤.001), with a median OS of 12.9 months compared to 17.4 months for patients with R132H variant (p=.08). In multivariate analysis including age, WBC, NPM1 and FLT3 status, and ELN risk, the CR rate was significantly lower in patients with the IDH1 R132C variant (p=.038). The median IDH VAF was 38% (range, 0.1 - 58) with no difference according to the different types of mutation. Patients with a VAF 〉 30% had a significantly higher BM blast count (73% vs 40% for VAF≤5%) and WBC (21.2 Gpt/L vs. 3.7 Gpt/L) at baseline, but there was no clear impact on CR rate or OS found in multivariate analysis. Conclusion In this large cohort of AML patients with IDH1/2 mutations, we found significant and so far not reported differences for one of the two most prominent mutations types of IDH1. The R132C variant was associated with increased age, lower WBC, and lower NPM1 and/or FLT3 co-mutation rate. Further, these patients had lower CR rates and a trend for shorter OS. For IDH2 we were able to reproduce findings on co-mutations and showed a favorable outcome for intensively treated patients with a normal karyotype and no NPM1/FLT3-ITD mutation and the IDH2 R172K variant, providing additional evidence for classification as a separate AML entity. Disclosures Middeke: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rollig:Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kramer:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Scholl:Alexion: Other: Travel support; Abbivie: Other: Travel support; Novartis: Other: Travel support; Deutsche Krebshilfe: Research Funding; Carreras Foundation: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MDS: Other: Travel support; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hochhaus:Incyte: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Brümmendorf:Takeda: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Burchert:Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding. Krause:Novartis: Research Funding. Hänel:Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Platzbecker:Celgene: Research Funding. Mayer:Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Serve:Bayer: Research Funding. Ehninger:Cellex Gesellschaft fuer Zellgewinnung mbH: Employment, Equity Ownership; Bayer: Research Funding; GEMoaB Monoclonals GmbH: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schetelig:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Thiede:AgenDix: Other: Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stoelzel:Neovii: Speakers Bureau.

Abstract: Purpose: The enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) is a histone methyltransferase and key epigenetic regulator involved in transcriptional repression and embryonic development. Loss of EZH2 activity by inactivating mutations is associated with poor prognosis in myeloid malignancies such as MDS. More recently, EZH2 inactivation was shown to induce chemoresistance in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (Göllner et al., 2017). Data on the frequency and prognostic role of EZH2-mutations in AML are rare and mostly confined to smaller cohorts. To investigate the prevalence and prognostic impact of this alteration in more detail, we analyzed a large cohort of AML patients (n = 1604) for EZH2 mutations. Patients and Methods: All patients analyzed had newly diagnosed AML, were registered in clinical protocols of the Study Alliance Leukemia (SAL) (AML96, AML2003 or AML60+, SORAML) and had available material at diagnosis. Screening for EZH2 mutations and associated alterations was done using Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) (TruSight Myeloid Sequencing Panel, Illumina) on an Illumina MiSeq-system using bone marrow or peripheral blood. Detection was conducted with a defined cut-off of 5% variant allele frequency (VAF). All samples below the predefined threshold were classified as EZH2 wild type (wt). Patient clinical characteristics and co-mutations were analyzed according to the mutational status. Furthermore, multivariate analysis was used to identify the impact of EZH2 mutations on outcome. Results: EZH2-mutations were found in 63 of 1604 (4%) patients, with a median VAF of 44% (range 6-97%; median coverage 3077x). Mutations were detected within several exons (2-6; 8-12; 14-20) with highest frequencies in exons 17 and 18 (29%). The majority of detected mutations (71% missense and 29% nonsense/frameshift) were single nucleotide variants (SNVs) (87%), followed by small indel mutations. Descriptive statistics of clinical parameters and associated co-mutations revealed significant differences between EZH2-mut and -wt patients. At diagnosis, patients with EZH2 mutations were significantly older (median age 59 yrs) than EZH2-wt patients (median 56 yrs; p=0.044). In addition, significantly fewer EZH2-mut patients (71%) were diagnosed with de novo AML compared to EZH2-wt patients (84%; p=0.036). Accordingly, EZH2-mut patients had a higher rate of secondary acute myeloid leukemia (sAML) (21%), evolving from prior MDS or after prior chemotherapy (tAML) (8%; p=0.036). Also, bone marrow (and blood) blast counts differed between the two groups (EZH2-mut patients had significantly lower BM and PB blast counts; p=0.013). In contrast, no differences were observed for WBC counts, karyotype, ECOG performance status and ELN-2017 risk category compared to EZH2-wt patients. Based on cytogenetics according to the 2017 ELN criteria, 35% of EZH2-mut patients were categorized with favorable risk, 28% had intermediate and 37% adverse risk. No association was seen with -7/7q-. In the group of EZH2-mut AML patients, significantly higher rates of co-mutations were detected in RUNX1 (25%), ASXL1 (22%) and NRAS (25%) compared to EZH2-wt patients (with 10%; 8% and 15%, respectively). Vice versa, concomitant mutations in NPM1 were (non-significantly) more common in EZH2-wt patients (33%) vs EZH2-mut patients (21%). For other frequently mutated genes in AML there was no major difference between EZH2-mut and -wt patients, e.g. FLT3ITD (13%), FLT3TKD (10%) and CEBPA (24%), as well as genes encoding epigenetic modifiers, namely, DNMT3A (21%), IDH1/2 (11/14%), and TET2 (21%). The correlation of EZH2 mutational status with clinical outcomes showed no effect of EZH2 mutations on the rate of complete remission (CR), relapse free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) (with a median OS of 18.4 and 17.1 months for EZH2-mut and -wt patients, respectively) in the univariate analyses. Likewise, the multivariate analysis with clinical variable such as age, cytogenetics and WBC using Cox proportional hazard regression, revealed that EZH2 mutations were not an independent risk factor for OS or RFS. Conclusion EZH mutations are recurrent alterations in patients with AML. The association with certain clinical factors and typical mutations such as RUNX1 and ASXL1 points to the fact that these mutations are associated with secondary AML. Our data do not indicate that EZH2 mutations represent an independent prognostic factor. Disclosures Middeke: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rollig:Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Scholl:Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbivie: Other: Travel support; Alexion: Other: Travel support; MDS: Other: Travel support; Novartis: Other: Travel support; Deutsche Krebshilfe: Research Funding; Carreras Foundation: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hochhaus:Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Brümmendorf:Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Burchert:AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Krause:Novartis: Research Funding. Hänel:Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Platzbecker:Celgene: Research Funding. Mayer:Eisai: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Serve:Bayer: Research Funding. Ehninger:Cellex Gesellschaft fuer Zellgewinnung mbH: Employment, Equity Ownership; Bayer: Research Funding; GEMoaB Monoclonals GmbH: Employment, Equity Ownership. Thiede:AgenDix: Other: Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract: The tyrosine-protein phosphatase nonreceptor type 11 (PTPN11) is an important regulator of RAS signaling and frequently affected by mutations in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Despite the relevance for leukemogenesis and as a potential therapeutic target, the prognostic role is controversial. To investigate the prognostic impact of PTPN11 mutations, we analyzed 1529 adult AML patients using next-generation sequencing. PTPN11 mutations were detected in 106 of 1529 (6.93%) patients (median VAF: 24%) in dominant (36%) and subclonal (64%) configuration. Patients with PTPN11 mutations were associated with concomitant mutations in NPM1 (63%), DNMT3A (37%), and NRAS (21%) and had a higher rate of European LeukemiaNet (ELN) favorable cytogenetics (57.8% vs 39.1%; P & lt; .001) and higher white blood cell counts (P = .007) compared with PTPN11 wild-type patients. In a multivariable analysis, PTPN11 mutations were independently associated with poor overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.75; P & lt; .001), relapse-free survival (HR: 1.52; P = .013), and a lower rate of complete remission (odds ratio: 0.46; P = .008). Importantly, the deleterious effect of PTPN11 mutations was confined predominantly to the ELN favorable-risk group and patients with subclonal PTPN11 mutations (HR: 2.28; P & lt; .001) but not found with dominant PTPN11 mutations (HR: 1.07; P = .775), presumably because of significant differences within the rate and spectrum of associated comutations. In conclusion, our data suggest an overall poor prognostic impact of PTPN11 mutations in AML, which is significantly modified by the underlying cytogenetics and the clonal context in which they occur.

Abstract: Background: The addition of sorafenib to standard induction and consolidation therapy in newly diagnosed patients (pts) ≤60 years (yrs) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) led to significant prolongation of event-free survival (EFS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) in the randomized placebo-controlled SORAML trial (NCT00893373). After a median follow-up of 3 yrs, a benefit for sorafenib treated pts was observed also in overall survival (OS), but this difference was not significant. Here, we present updated survival data and information on relapse treatment and outcome. Methods: In the SORAML trial, 267 newly diagnosed untreated fit AML pts up to 60 yrs of age and irrespective of FLT3 mutation status received two cycles of induction chemotherapy with DA (daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 days 3-5 plus cytarabine 100 mg/m2 cont. inf. days 1-7), followed by three cycles of high-dose cytarabine consolidation (3 g/m2 b.i.d. days 1, 3, 5). Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) was scheduled for all intermediate-risk pts in first complete remission (CR) with a sibling donor and for all high-risk pts with a matched related or unrelated donor. At study inclusion, pts were randomized to receive either sorafenib (2x400 mg/day) or placebo as add-on to standard treatment in a double blinded fashion. Study medication was given on days 10-19 of DA I+II, from day 8 of each consolidation until 3 days before the start of the next consolidation and as maintenance for 12 months (mos) after the end of consolidation. The primary endpoint of the trial was EFS. The results after follow-up of 3 yrs were presented at ASH 2014 (Röllig et al., Blood 2014; 124: 6) and fully published (Röllig et al., Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 1691-9). Here, we present the results after prolonged follow-up. For this analysis, information on remission and survival status, mode and outcome of relapse treatment including SCT were collected for all randomized pts and analyzed by standard statistical methods. Results: Of 267 treated pts, 134 were randomized in the sorafenib arm and 133 in the placebo arm with a resulting CR rate of 60% and 59%, respectively. After a median observation time of 78 mos, the primary study endpoint EFS in the placebo vs sorafenib arm was 9 mos vs 26 mos (HR 0.68, p=0.01) in univariate Kaplan Meier analysis. The beneficial effect of sorafenib on EFS was confirmed in multivariate Cox regression analysis with a HR of 0.61 (p=0.005). Median RFS in the placebo vs sorafenib arms was 22 vs 63 mos, corresponding to a HR of 0.64 (p=0.033). Exploratory analyses were performed in the 70 relapsing pts (40 after placebo vs 30 after sorafenib treatment). Among relapsing pts, 82% vs 73% achieved a second CR. In these two groups, 88% and 87% of pts received a SCT as part of salvage treatment. A lower proportion of pts in the placebo arm received a second SCT as salvage treatment (5% vs 13%). In the context of salvage SCT, the proportion of haploident donors in the placebo and sorafenib group was 3% vs 15% and the incidence of Grade 3/4 GVDH was 17% vs 0%. SCT-related non-relapse mortality (NRM) was similar in both groups, but the cumulative incidence of second relapse (CIR) was higher in the sorafenib group (35% vs 54% after 48 mos). Therefore, median OS from relapse in the placebo vs sorafenib groups were 27 mos vs 10 mos, corresponding to a HR of 1.68 (p=0.098). The projected median OS from randomization is 83 mos in the placebo arm and was not reached for the sorafenib arm, corresponding to a 5-year OS of 52% vs 61% (HR 0.81, p=0.263). Conclusion: Mature follow-up data confirms the antileukemic efficacy of sorafenib in younger AML pts with and without FLT3 mutation. The addition of sorafenib to standard chemotherapy resulted in a significantly longer EFS and clinically relevant 36% risk reduction for relapse or death. Five pts need to be treated (NNT) to prevent one relapse or death at 3 years and six pts at 5 yrs. Exploratory analyses in relapsing pts show that survival after relapse is shorter after sorafenib which might be due to i) a higher rate of second SCTs and a higher incidence of haploidentical SCT despite the lower frequency of severe GVHD, most likely by chance and not explainable by systematic reasons and ii) a lower response to salvage treatment after sorafenib therapy. Despite these observations, primary sorafenib treatment led to an OS benefit with a 19% risk reduction for death which was not statistically significant since this phase II trial was not adequately powered to detect OS differences. Figure Figure. Disclosures Rollig: Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Hüttmann: Gilead, Amgen: Other: Travel cost; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Celgene, Roche: Honoraria. Giagounidis: Acceleron: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Mackensen: AMGEN: Research Funding. Hänel: Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Thiede: Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agendix: Employment. Schetelig: Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract: In fit patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), immediate treatment start is recommended due to the poor prognosis of untreated acute leukemia. We explored the relationship between time from diagnosis to treatment start (TDT) and prognosis in a large real-world data set from the German Study Alliance Leukemia–Acute Myeloid Leukemia (SAL-AML) registry. All registered non–acute promyelocytic leukemia patients with intensive induction treatment and a minimum 12 months of follow-up were selected (n = 2263). We analyzed influence of TDT on remission, early death, and overall survival (OS) in univariable analyses for each day of treatment delay, in groups of 0 to 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, and & gt;15 days of TDT, adjusted for influence of established prognostic variables on outcomes. Median TDT was 3 days (interquartile range, 2-7). Unadjusted 2-year OS rates, stratified by TDT of 0 to 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, and & gt;15 days, were 51%, 48%, 44%, and 50% (P = .211). In multivariable Cox regression analysis accounting for established prognostic variables, the TDT hazard ratio as a continuous variable was 1.00 (P = .617). In OS analyses, separately stratified for age ≤60 and & gt;60 years and for high vs lower initial white blood cell count, no significant differences between TDT groups were observed. Our study suggests that TDT is not related to survival. As stratification in intensive first-line AML treatment evolves, TDT data suggest that it may be a feasible approach to wait for genetic and other laboratory test results so that clinically stable patients are assigned the best available treatment option. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03188874.