Abstract: Introduction: The PETAL trial is a multicenter randomized controlled study for patients with aggressive lymphomas of diverse histologies (EudraCT 2006-001641-33, NCT00554164). In the study population as a whole interim PET (iPET) reliably predicted time to treatment failure (TTTF) and overall survival (OS). Interim PET-based treatment changes, however, had no impact on outcome (ASH 2014, abstract 391). Here we report the exploratory analysis for aggressive B cell lymphomas. Methods: Pts. aged 18 to 80 yrs. with newly diagnosed aggressive lymphomas and a positive baseline PET received 2 cycles of rituximab (R), cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP) followed by iPET. The conditions of iPET were strictly defined: 3-week interval between the 2nd R-CHOP cycle and iPET to avoid inflammatory reactions (Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:682, 2003), no G-CSF after the 2nd cycle to avoid altered glucose biodistribution (J Nucl Med 47:950, 2006), standardized uptake value (SUV)-based PET interpretation to improve reproducibility (favorable iPET response: reduction of maximum SUV by 〉 66 % compared to baseline; J Nucl Med 48:1626, 2007). Pts. with CD20+ lymphomas and a favorable iPET were randomized to receive 4 more cycles of R-CHOP or the same treatment plus 2 extra doses of R (part A of the trial). Pts. with an unfavorable iPET were randomized to continue R-CHOP for 6 additional cycles or receive 6 blocks of a more complex methotrexate-, cytarabine- and etoposide-based regimen originally designed for Burkitt lymphoma (Blood 124: 3870, 2014; part B). R was omitted in pts. with CD20- lymphomas. Sample size of the entire study population was based on the empirically derived assumption that treatment failure after 2 yrs. (TF: progression, relapse, treatment discontinuation due to toxicity, start of alternative therapy, death of any cause) could be improved from 80 % to 90 % in part A and from 30 % to 45 % in part B (alpha=0.05, power=0.8). Secondary endpoints included OS and toxicity. Results: Fifty-seven oncological centers and 23 nuclear medicine institutions participated in the trial. Between 2007 and 2012 1072 pts. were registered, and 862 (80.4 %) had a positive baseline PET, received 2 cycles R-CHOP, underwent iPET and were allocated to one of the post-iPET treatment arms detailed above. Reference pathology was available in 98 %, and median follow-up is 52 months. All in all, there were 779 patients with CD20+ aggressive B-cell lymphomas (90.4 % of all treated pts.) of whom 606 had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 42 primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) and 42 follicular lymphoma grade 3 (FL3). Interim PET was favorable in 691 pts. (88.7 %) and unfavorable in 88 pts. with CD20+ lymphomas (11.3 %). It was highly predictive of TTTF for CD20+ lymphomas in general and for each of the DLBCL, PMBCL and FL3 subgroups (Table). In CD20+ lymphomas and DLBCL, the iPET response predicted TF independently of the International Prognostic Index, and it was also predictive of OS. The groups of PMBCL and FL3 were too small for multivariate analyses. In part A, adding 2 extra doses of R failed to improve TTTF and OS in all histological entities. Separate analyses for subgroups defined by sex, age ( 〈 vs. 〉 60 yrs.) or a combination of the two showed no statistically significant benefit of extra doses of R in any of the subgroups. In pts. with an unfavorable iPET response, a switch from R-CHOP to the Burkitt regimen failed to improve TTTF or OS in CD20+ lymphomas in general (Figure) and in the DLBCL, PMBCL and FL3 subgroups. In part B, the Burkitt protocol was associated with more grade 3/4 leukopenia (82 % vs. 57 %, p=0.02), thrombocytopenia (59 % vs. 18 %, p=0.0001), infection (41 % vs. 16 %, p=0.017) and mucositis (39 % vs. 7 %, p=0.0007) than R-CHOP, but treatment-related mortality was similar in both arms (1 death each). Conclusion: In this large multicenter trial iPET proved highly predictive of outcome in pts. with CD20+ aggressive B-cell lymphomas, DLBCL, PMBCL or FL3 treated with R-CHOP. In pts. with a favorable iPET response, addition of 2 extra doses of R to 6 cycles R-CHOP failed to improve outcome in CD20+ lymphomas in general and in subgroups defined by histology, sex or age. In pts. with an unfavorable iPET response, switching to a more aggressive protocol also failed to improve outcome in any of the entities. Novel strategies are required for aggressive B-cell lymphomas failing to respond to the first 2 cycles of R-CHOP. Table Table. Figure Figure. Disclosures Duehrsen: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Giagounidis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Grube:BMS, Sanofi: Consultancy. Klapper:Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda: Research Funding. Hüttmann:Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Celgene, Roche: Honoraria; Gilead, Amgen: Other: Travel cost.

Abstract: Introduction: Patients (pts) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are refractory to intensive frontline treatment have a dismal outcome. In case of ineligibility for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the median survival of chemo-refractory AML is about 2 months and less than 5% of these pts are alive after 1-year (retrospective analysis from the AMLSG database). To date, there is no universally accepted standard approach for the treatment of chemo-refractory AML in older pts. Several retrospective studies have assessed the role of hypomethylating agents in this patient group, but complete remission (CR) rates were disappointingly low (≤10%) when compared to first line treatment. The presented study represents a novel approach focusing on hematopoietic tissue reprogramming (i.e. anakoinosis) (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02942758). Methods: The initial dose-finding phase I of the study evaluated the combination of azacitidine (AZA) 75 mg/d s.c. for 7 days, repeated every 28-days, pioglitazone 45 mg/d p.o. continuously from day 1 and all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA). A modified 3+3 design has been used to establish the maximum-tolerated dose of ATRA. Patients have been enrolled at an ATRA dose of 45 mg/m²/d from day 1 to day 28 and 15 mg/m²/d continuously thereafter if no dose limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred until start of next cycle on day 29. The safety DLTs were defined as toxicities attributable to ATRA, expected or unexpected, except if these are likely associated with another cause. Eligible patients had confirmed diagnosis of AML refractory to induction therapy and were not eligible for further intensive induction therapy or were not immediate candidates for allogeneic HSCT. The severity of adverse events was graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) V. 4.03. The response to treatment was evaluated using standard criteria defined by the expert panel on behalf of the European LeukemiaNet and international working group (IWG) response. Results: Ten pts were enrolled in the safety-run-in phase I (one pt withdrew informed consent on day 9 of cycle 1). Among all treated pts, the median age was 67 years (range, 62-76 years), and the majority of pts (70%) had an ECOG PS of 1 (see table 1). Two pts had secondary AML; another two pts had therapy-related AML (t-AML). Eight pts had a complex karyotype. Concerning safety, hematological adverse events (AEs) were the most common toxicities observed. Because pts with baseline cytopenia were included (leukopenia n=8; 80%; thrombocytopenia n=9; 90%), occurrences of many hematological AEs began before study drug initiation and were attributed to underlying hematologic disease. Common 3°/4° AEs included neutropenia (50%), anemia (50%), thrombocytopenia (30%), and infections (40%). 50% of pts experienced a serious AE; one 5° AE (gastric hemorrhage) occurred. No DLTs were observed. Five pts discontinued the study, with progressive disease (PD) or relapse being the most common reason for discontinuation. Concerning efficacy, 3 pts (30%) achieved a CR and one pt a long-lasting stable disease (14 months). Morphologic review showed signs of differentiation of blasts in responding pts, which has already been shown in in-vitro analysis. In line with this observation, one pt demonstrated resolution of fungal pneumonia during the study. Conclusions: In summary, the low-intensity, biomodulatory regimen of low-dose AZA, pioglitazone, and ATRA demonstrated a tolerable safety profile and encouraging signals for efficacy in pts with AML refractory to standard induction chemotherapy warranting further investigation. S.T. and A.R. contributed equally to this abstract as senior co-authors. Disclosures Paschka: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses; Amgen: Other: Travel expenses; Otsuka: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Travel expenses; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: Travel expenses; Takeda: Other: Travel expenses; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Döhner:Celgene, Novartis, Sunesis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AROG, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer: Research Funding; AbbVie, Agios, Amgen, Astellas, Astex, Celator, Janssen, Jazz, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Thomas:Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support; Medigene AG: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Medac: Other: Travel support; Janssen: Other: Travel support.

Abstract: Background Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)-study IV was designed to explore whether treatment with imatinib (IM) at 400mg/day (n=400) could be optimized by doubling the dose (n=420), adding IFN (n=430) or cytarabine (n=158) or using IM after IFN-failure (n=128). Methods From July 2002 to March 2012, 1551 newly diagnosed patients in chronic phase were randomized into a 5-arm study. The study was powered to detect a survival difference of 5% at 5 years. The impact of patients' and disease factors on survival was prospectively analyzed. At the time of evaluation, at least 62% of patients still received imatinib, 26.2% were switched to 2nd generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Results After a median observation time of 9.5 years, 10-year overall survival was 82%, 10-year progression-free survival 80% and 10-year relative survival 92%. In spite of a faster response with IM800mg, the survival difference between IM400mg and IM800mg was only 3% at 5 years. In a multivariate analysis, the influence on survival of risk-group, major-route chromosomal aberrations, comorbidities, smoking and treatment center (academic vs. other) was significant in contrast to any form of initial treatment optimization. Patients that reached the response milestones 3, 6 and 12 months, had a significant survival advantage of about 6% after 10 years regardless of therapy. The progression probability to blast crisis was 5.8%. Blast crisis was proceeded by high-risk additional chromosomal aberrations. Conclusions For responders, monotherapy with IM400mg provides a close to normal life expectancy independent of the time to response. Survival is more determined by patients' and disease factors than by initial treatment selection. Although improvements are also needed for refractory disease and blast crisis, more life-time can currently be gained by carefully addressing non-CML determinants of survival. Disclosures Hehlmann: Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Saussele: Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding. Pfirrmann: BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Krause: Novartis: Honoraria. Baerlocher: Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Bruemmendorf: Novartis: Research Funding. Müller: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jeromin: MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment. Hänel: Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Burchert: BMS: Honoraria. Waller: Mylan: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mayer: Eisai: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Link: Novartis: Honoraria. Scheid: Novartis: Honoraria. Schafhausen: Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria. Hochhaus: Incyte: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding.