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: 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: Introduction: Most patients with FLT3-ITD-positive AML, who relapse after allogenic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) die from their disease. Whether prophylactic FLT3-ITD inhibition with sorafenib can prevent AML relapse and improve outcome of patients in complete hematological remission (CHR) after allo-SCT is unknown and was tested in the SORMAIN trial. Methods: This randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study was done at 14 centers in Germany and Austria. Patients with FLT3-ITD+ AML, aged 18 years or older, who had undergone allogenic stem cell transplantation from a HLA-matched sibling donor, 10/10 or 9/10 HLA-matched unrelated donor, and who were in confirmed CHR at the time of screening between day +30 and day +100 post allo-SCT, were included. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either sorafenib (starting dose: 2 x 1 tbl. [2 x 200mg] qd, increasing every 14d to up to 2 x 2 tbl. [2 x 400mg] qd according to tolerability) or placebo (2 x 1 or 2 tbl. qd) for up to 24 months. Randomization was done centrally. In case of drug related adverse events, study medication could be interrupted, stepwise reduced to a minimum of 2 x 1 tbl. qd, temporarily withheld and recommenced at a lower dose level. FLT3-ITD diagnostics was done centrally at baseline and at time of relapse. In relapsing patients, off-label compassionate use of sorafenib was possible. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS) as defined by either hematological relapse or death from any cause. The secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). We here report the final RFS analysis. The OS results will be unblinded only prior to the ASH meeting and will be reported there. The SORMAIN study was terminated prior to full recruitment because of slow accrual. SORMAIN was registered with the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT 2010-018539-16) and the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00000591). Results: Between October 29, 2010, and May 17, 2016, 83 patients (41 males, 42 females) were randomized and included in the primary analysis (placebo, n=40; sorafenib, n=43). Median age was 54 years (IQR 47.75 - 61.33) for the entire study population and not significantly different between sorafenib and placebo groups. With a median follow up of 41.8 months after randomization (IQR 24.1 - 42.5), median RFS was 30.9 months (lower bound of 95% CI 5.2 months) in the placebo group versus not reached in the sorafenib group, corresponding to a 2-year RFS of 53,3 % (95% CI 36.5-67.5) in the placebo versus 85.0 % (69.5-93.0) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, 95% CI; 0.18 -0.85; P=0.0135) (Fig. 1). Overall, sorafenib was well tolerated. The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in both groups was acute GvHD (seven [ 17.5%] in the placebo group vs. nine [20.9%] in the sorafenib group. Conclusion: Sorafenib maintenance therapy after allo-SCT is feasible and significantly reduces the risk of relapse or death in patients with FLT3-ITD positive AML. OS results will be presented at the meeting. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Burchert: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Bug:Amgen: Honoraria; Neovii: Other: Travel Grant; Novartis Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Other: Travel Grant; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel Grant; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel Grant. Finke:Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Neovii: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Medac: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding. Stelljes:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; JAZZ: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Rollig:Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Wäsch:Pfizer: Honoraria. Lang:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Research Funding. Ehninger:Cellex Gesellschaft fuer Zellgewinnung mbH: Employment, Equity Ownership; GEMoaB Monoclonals GmbH: Employment, Equity Ownership; Bayer: Research Funding. Serve:Bayer: Research Funding. Kroeger:Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Götze:JAZZ Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel aid ASH 2017; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Schmid:Jazz Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant, Speakers Bureau. Wolf:BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding. Thiede:AgenDix: Other: Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Haferlach:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bethge:Miltenyi Biotec GmbH: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Neovii GmbH: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract: Background In newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the general recommendation is to start treatment immediately after the diagnosis has been made. This paradigm is based both on the observation that untreated acute leukemia has a poor prognosis and on retrospective analyses demonstrating a shorter survival in younger AML patients (pts) in whom treatment was delayed by more than 5 days (Sekeres et al., 2009). A more recent single-center analysis came to a different conclusion, showing no prognostic effect for the time from diagnosis to treatment (TDT; Bertoli et al., 2013). We explored the relationship between TDT and prognosis on a large set of real-world data from the AML registry of the Study Alliance Leukemia (SAL) and compared it to the published cohorts. Methods The SAL runs a transregional AML registry in 46 treatment centers across Germany (NCT03188874). All registered patients with an intensive induction treatment, a minimum follow-up time of 12 months and no acute promyelocytic leukemia were selected (n=2,200). Treatment start was defined by the first day of cytarabine, whereas single agent hydroxyurea (HU) was labeled as pretreatment. We analyzed the influence of TDT on complete remission (CR), early death (ED) and overall survival (OS) in univariable analyses for each day of treatment delay, in groups of 0-5, 6-10, 11-15 and & gt;15 days of TDT, and by using the restricted cubic spline (RCS) method for data modelling. In order to adjust for the influence of established prognostic variables on the outcomes, we used multivariable regression models and propensity score weighting. The influence of HU pretreatment on outcomes was investigated by introducing an interaction term between TDT and the presence of HU pretreatment. Results The median age was 59 years (y) (IQR 50-68), the proportion of pts with favorable, intermediate and adverse genetic risk according to ELN was 27%, 53%, and 20%; & gt;95% of pts received induction treatment with standard 7+3. HU pretreatment was administered in 4% of pts. The median TDT was 3 days (IQR 2-6). Descriptive statistics after grouping of pts showed the highest median age and the lowest proportion of NPM1 mutated and favorable risk in the TDT group 11-15. Of all pts, 79% achieved a CR/CRi; unadjusted CR rates for the patient groups with TDT of 0-5, 6-10, 11-15 and & gt;15 days were 80%, 77%, 74% and 76%, respectively (p=0.317). In multivariable analysis accounting for the influence of ELN risk, age, WBC, LDH, de novo versus secondary AML and ECOG, the OR for each additional day of TDT was 0.99 (95%-CI, 0.97-1.00; p=0.124). Four percent of pts died within the first 30 days from treatment start. The respective rates in the four TDT categories were 4.0%, 3.8%, 5.1% and 4.1% (p=0.960). In multivariable analysis, the OR for TDT was 1.01 (95%-CI, 0.98-1.05; p=0.549). After a median follow-up of 40 months, the 2-y OS of all pts was 51%. The unadjusted 2-y OS rates stratified by TDT of 0-5, 6-10, 11-15, & gt;15 days were 52, 49, 46, and 51% (see Table 1 and Figure 1). The hazard ratio (HR) for each day of treatment delay was 1.00 (95%-CI; 0.99-1.01; p=0.317). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, the HR for TDT as continuous variable was 1.00 (95%-CI, 0.99-1.01; p=0.689). When OS was analyzed separately stratified for age ≤60 and & gt;60 ys and for high versus lower initial WBC defined by a threshold of 50 x 109/L, no significant differences between TDT groups were observed. Multivariable models using TDT as a grouped variable or with RCS did not provide evidence for a significant influence of TDT on outcomes. Propensity score matching of pts in the four TDT groups did not reveal an influence on outcomes. The use of HU was not associated with CR, ED nor OS. Conclusion Our study on 2,200 newly diagnosed registry pts receiving consistent intensive induction with standard-dose cytarabine plus daunorubicin (7+3) suggests that TDT is not related to response or survival, neither in younger nor in older pts. Despite multivariable analyses, a bias towards longer TDT intervals in pts judged to be clinically stable by the treating physician cannot be excluded entirely. As treatment stratification in intensive first-line treatment of AML evolves, the TDT data suggests that it may be a safe and reasonable approach to wait for genetic and other laboratory test results in order to assign clinically stable pts to the best available treatment option before the start of intensive treatment. Disclosures Krämer: Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hänel:Roche: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Other: advisory board; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: advisory board. Jost:Daiichi: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: travel grants; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Brümmendorf:Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen: Employment; Ariad: Consultancy. Krause:Siemens: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: travel; Celgene Corporation: Other: Travel. Scholl:Novartis: Other: Project funding; Pfizer: Other: Advisory boards; Gilead: Other: Project funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: Advisory boards; AbbVie: Other: Advisory boards. Hochhaus:Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding. Kiani:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Middeke:Sanofi: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy. Thiede:AgenDix GmbH: Employment, Equity Ownership; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Speakers Bureau. Stoelzel:JAZZ Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Neovii: Other: Travel funding; Shire: Consultancy, Other: Travel funding. Platzbecker:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract: Introduction: The ELN classification of cytogenetic aberrations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) distinguishes favorable risk, intermediate risk I and II and adverserisk. The adverse-risk group contains patients (pts) with inv(3) and t(3;3). These pts have a significantly poorer outcome compared to other cytogenetic aberrations. The MRC classification considers both pts with inv(3) and t(3;3) as well as patients with other abn(3q) as adverse risk, but excludes t(3;5). Pts with inv(3) or t(3;3) have breakpoints located on the long arm of chromosome 3 at q21 and q26. As a result of these chromosomal modifications, an enhancer-protein is deregulated and the stem-cell regulator zinc finger protein EVI1 on 3q26 is over expressed. Other 3q aberrations do not involve EVI1. We conducted a comparative analysis on the impact of abn(3q) with likely EVI1 alteration versus abn(3q) without EVI1 involvement. Analyses were done both in the entire group of abn(3q) pts and in the subgroup of pts treated with allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis on 163 patients with an abnormality on the q arm of chromosome 3 (abn(3q)). These pts were treated between 1996 and 2009 in three multicenter studies by the German SAL study group (AML2003, AML96, AML60+). Pts with t(3;5) were excluded (n=11). The remaining 152 patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 (EVI1) contained 56 patients with a chromosomal aberration likely to alter EVI1, i.e. t(3;3), inv(3) and abn(3)(q26). Group 2 (noEVI1) comprised the remaining 96 patients displaying other abn(3q) aberrations. We compared groups for baseline characteristics, complete remission (CR), relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in total and stratified for treatment. Results: Descriptive comparison of the groups (EVI1 vs noEVI1) revealed a significantly higher WBC count (14.3 vs 4.6 Gpt/l), PLT count (62 vs 47 Gpt/l) and -7 incidence (29% vs 16%) in the EVI1 group, whereas in the noEVI1 group, complex aberrations (25% vs 74%) and 17p alterations (0% vs 24%) occurred in a higher proportion of pts. CR rates (52% vs 47%), median RFS (7 vs 6 months) and median OS (6 vs 7 months) did not differ significantly between the two groups. In order to explore the clinical behavior of the different abn(3q) aberrations in relation to allogeneic HSCT, we compared EVI1 pts (n=21) versus noEVI1 pts (n=38) who received an allogeneic HSCT at any time during treatment. Patients with aberrant EVI1 were significantly younger (median age 44 vs 52 years), had a higher incidence of -7 (29% vs 13%), but less frequent karyotype complexity (10% vs 74%) or 17p alterations (0% vs 24%). More patients in the EVI1 group achieved a first CR before HSCT (95% vs 84%). Amongst CR pts, median RFS was slightly higher in the EVI1group (9 vs 6 months). In all abn(3q) pts with allogeneic HSCT, median OS was 30 months in the EVI1 group and only 12.5 months in the noEVI1 group. According to the log-rank test, this difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.137). The advantage in mean OS for EVI1 patients is most likely due to the higher proportion of patients transplanted in CR while the accumulation of complex karyotypes in the noEVI1 group caused more primary resistant AML cases with a rapid progression even after allogeneic HSCT. Conclusions: Although AML development may be based on different molecularbiological mechanisms in patients with different abn(3q) aberrations depending on EVI1 alteration, the prognosis of the two groups is very similar. The most likely reason is the equal balance of favorable and adverse prognostic factors between the two groups such as age, karyotype complexity, 17p alteration and -7. Patients of both groups benefit from allogeneic HSCT to a similar extent. Confirmation of these results on larger data sets is desirable and under way. Disclosures Baldus: Novartis: Research Funding. Einsele:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Thiede:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AgenDix GmBH: Equity Ownership.