Abstract: Background: Activating mutations of NRAS and KRAS genes are common in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), occurring in 11-16% and 4-5% of patients, respectively. RAS mutations are frequently acquired at time of progression from MDS to AML and are associated with poor survival. Next generation sequencing (NGS) at diagnosis and during complete remission has shown that RAS mutations have high clearance rates with induction chemotherapy. In the CALGB 8525 study, RAS-mutant younger patients (age & lt;60 years) randomized to treatment with high-dose cytarabine consolidation had a lower 10-year cumulative incidence of relapse when compared to RAS WT patients. We performed a single center retrospective study to determine the outcomes of NRAS and KRAS mutated AML in patients receiving induction chemotherapy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients with newly diagnosed AML treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between January 1, 2014 to May 15, 2019. Patients with pathologic confirmation of AML and treatment with induction chemotherapy were included. Age & lt; 18 years old, treatment with a pediatric induction regimen, a diagnosis of biphenotypic AML, unknown RAS mutation status at diagnosis, or treatment an outside institution were criteria for exclusion. All patients underwent NGS from a diagnostic bone marrow aspirate (BMA) with MiSeq or MSK-IMPACT platforms. Mutations present with a variant allele frequency (VAF) ≥ 1% were retained. Response was evaluated per ELN 2017 criteria. Immunophenotypic MRD was identified in BMA by multiparameter flow cytometry. Any level of residual disease was considered MRD+. Baseline characteristics were evaluated by Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to summarize OS and EFS. Multivariable cox regression, including time-dependent variables was performed on univariate factors with p & lt;0.05. Results: 202 patients, including 162 WT and 40 RAS mutant met inclusion criteria for further analysis. Mutations in NRAS and KRAS occurred in 14%, and 8% of patients, respectively with 6 patients having co-occurring NRAS and KRAS mutations. At baseline, the RAS mutant AML cohort had a significantly greater proportion of patients with AML-MRC and a trend toward fewer patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplant. (Table 1.) Cytogenetic abnormalities were similar among RAS and WT patients. Sequencing at diagnosis revealed an increased frequency of FLT3 TKD, RUNX1, TET2, WT1, and ETV6 mutations and a decreased frequency of FLT3-ITD and TP53 mutations in the RAS mutant cohort. Response rates and MRD negative remission rates to induction chemotherapy were similar between RAS and WT AML patients (Table 2). With a median follow up of 25 months among survivors, RAS mutant AML was associated with a significant decrease in median EFS (4.9 vs. 11.4 months, p & lt; 0.01) and a near significant decrease in median OS (12 vs. 30.1 months, p=0.057) (Figure 1 and 2). After controlling for variables with p & lt;0.05 on univariate analysis including age, prior myeloid malignancy, AML classification, ELN risk, transplantation, and re-induction, RAS mutation was independently associated with an increased risk of death (HR 1.85, p=0.016) and decreased EFS (HR 2.19, p & lt; 0.01) on multivariate analyses (Tables 3 and 4). Among 77 patients with paired sequencing at diagnosis and at time of CR or CRi, all RAS mutations (n=17) were cleared (Figure 3). Additionally, other RAS pathway mutations had high clearance rates including PTPN11 (n=8, 100%), NF1 (n=3, 100%, and CBL (n= 4, 80%) (Figure 3). RAS mutation clearance also occurred in 3 out of 8 patients (38%) not achieving CR or CRi after induction. RAS mutation clearance persisted in 6 out of 10 responding patients at time of relapse. Conclusions: In summary, the presence of RAS mutations in patients with AML receiving induction chemotherapy was associated with decreased overall and event free survival. RAS mutant AML was enriched among patients with AML-MRC and prior myeloid neoplasms, which was also associated with decreased survival. Lastly, treatment with chemotherapy led to a high rate of RAS mutation clearance in responders that persisted at the time of disease relapse. The poor prognosis of RAS mutant AML despite RAS mutation clearance suggests that other therapies are needed in combination with chemotherapy to improve outcomes in this high-risk population. Disclosures Cai: Imago Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy. Viny:Hematology News: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mission Bio: Other: Sponsored travel. Goldberg:American Society of Clinical Oncology: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; American Society of Hematology: Research Funding; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Tallman:BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Cellerant: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stein:Astellas Pharma US, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract: Measurable residual disease (MRD) is a powerful prognostic factor in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, pre‐treatment molecular predictors of immunophenotypic MRD clearance remain unclear. We analyzed a dataset of 211 patients with pre‐treatment next‐generation sequencing who received induction chemotherapy and had MRD assessed by serial immunophenotypic monitoring after induction, subsequent therapy, and allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo‐SCT). Induction chemotherapy led to MRD− remission, MRD+ remission, and persistent disease in 35%, 27%, and 38% of patients, respectively. With subsequent therapy, 34% of patients with MRD+ and 26% of patients with persistent disease converted to MRD‐. Mutations in CEBPA, NRAS , KRAS , and NPM1 predicted high rates of MRD− remission, while mutations in TP53, SF3B1, ASXL1 , and RUNX1 and karyotypic abnormalities including inv (3), monosomy 5 or 7 predicted low rates of MRD− remission. Patients with fewer individual clones were more likely to achieve MRD− remission. Among 132 patients who underwent allo‐SCT, outcomes were favorable whether patients achieved early MRD− after induction or later MRD− after subsequent therapy prior to allo‐SCT. As MRD conversion with chemotherapy prior to allo‐SCT is rarely achieved in patients with specific baseline mutational patterns and high clone numbers, upfront inclusion of these patients into clinical trials should be considered.

Abstract: Background: Measurable residual disease (MRD) is a powerful prognostic factor in AML, including in prediction of outcomes post allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT). However, genomic predictors of successful MRD eradication with chemotherapy prior to alloSCT are unclear. Objectives: Here we provide an integrated analysis of 233 patients (pts) who underwent induction chemotherapy with baseline next-generation sequencing (NGS) followed by serial immunophenotypic monitoring for MRD while patients received additional therapy and alloSCT. Methods: All pts who received anthracycline + cytarabine, +/- investigational agents at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center starting in April 2014 were retrospectively studied (A). 142 out of 233 pts subsequently underwent alloSCT after induction or additional therapy (A). Immunophenotypic MRD was identified in bone marrow aspirates (BMA) by multiparameter flow cytometry. Any level of residual disease was considered MRD+. Molecular analysis was obtained from pre-induction BMA by NGS using 28 or 49 or 400 gene panels. Results: Patient and treatment characteristics for all pts are detailed in panel (B). Induction chemotherapy resulted in an MRD-CR/CRi and MRD+CR/CRi in 29% and 23% of all pts, respectively (C). Additional therapy included consolidation (n=51), intensive re-induction/salvage (n=47) and non-intensive therapy (n=9). Of 83 AML pts with persistent AML and 58 pts with MRD+CR/CRi after induction (R1), 38/141 (27%) were able to be converted to MRD-CR/CRi. While 33/38 of pts went on to alloSCT after conversion to MRD-CR/CRi, 22 and 36 pts went to alloSCT with persistent AML and MRD+CR/CRi AML, respectively. We focused on pre-induction molecular predictors for achieving an MRD-CR/CRi response prior to transplant for the 142 pts who underwent alloSCT (D). Pts with a NPM1 (79%, Odds ratio [OR] 3.7, p=0.01), IDH1 (92%, OR 3.9, p=0.01) and KRAS (100%, OR 5.0, p=0.03) mutations achieved high rates of MRD-CR/CRi prior to alloSCT. In contrast, RUNX1 (28%, OR 0.2, p=0.01), TP53 (12%, OR 0.1, p=0.02) and SF3B1 (14%, OR 0.1, p=0.04) mutations predicted decreased odds of achieving MRD-CR/CRi prior to alloSCT despite induction and post-induction therapy. AlloSCT resulted in high rates of conversion from MRD+ and persistent disease to MRD negativity. Most pts who entered transplant with CR/CRi MRD+ (28/36, 76%) or persistent AML (14/22, 64%) cleared MRD by the first post-transplant BMA at a median of 32 days (E). Post-alloSCT follow-up indicated value in converting MRD+ to MRD- prior to alloSCT. There was no significant difference in post-transplant cumulative incidence of relapse (F) and OS (G) between early MRD-CR/CRi immediately following induction versus later conversion to MRD-CR/CRi with additional therapy prior to alloSCT. Despite initial post-transplant MRD clearance, pts who entered alloSCT with persistent AML or MRD+ had higher incidence of relapse (p=0.00037, F) and poorer post-transplant OS (p=0.013, G) compared to pts who entered alloSCT with MRD-. Pts with persistent disease prior to alloSCT had shorter duration of MRD- induced by alloSCT compared to pts with MRD-CR/CRi after induction or converted MRD-CR/CRi prior to alloSCT (p=0.0042, H). Importantly, duration of MRD negativity after alloSCT for patients who achieved MRD- prior to alloSCT was not affected by whether patients received induction +/- consolidation (I: treatment type 1-3 from B) vs. induction and salvage treatment for refractory AML (I: treatment type 4-6 from B). Conclusion: We show that transplanted AML pts with specific molecular mutations (RUNX1, SF3B1, and TP53) are unlikely to achieve MRD-CR/CRi after induction, consolidation or salvage therapy, while other mutations (NPM1, IDH1, KRAS) predict high rates of MRD- prior to alloSCT. Additional post-induction therapy may be advantageous for some MRD+ pts to achieve MRD- prior to alloSCT. Post-transplant OS is improved in pts who are MRD- at time of transplant, regardless of whether they required additional therapy beyond induction to achieve this state. AlloSCT is highly effective at eradicating MRD, but post-transplant MRD- is more durable in pts who are MRD- pre-alloSCT. Our results suggest that development of MRD-eradicating therapies has the potential to improve post-transplant outcomes and argues for innovative trials for pts with adverse molecular features currently unlikely to achieve MRD- pre alloSCT. Figure Disclosures Cai: Imago Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria. Geyer:Amgen: Research Funding. Glass:Gerson Lehman Group: Consultancy. Stein:Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biotheryx: Consultancy; Bayer: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syndax: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Levine:Gilead: Honoraria; Isoplexis: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Qiagen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; Imago: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Loxo: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Gyurkocza:Actinium: Research Funding. Perales:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MolMed: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Omeros: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; NexImmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cidara Therapeutics: Other; Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Bellicum: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Abdel-Wahab:H3 Biomedicine Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Envisagenics Inc.: Current equity holder in private company; Merck: Consultancy. Papaemmanuil:Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria; Isabl: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSKCC: Patents & Royalties; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Illumina: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Prime Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria. Giralt:KITE: Consultancy; NOVARTIS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; OMEROS: Consultancy, Honoraria; AMGEN: Consultancy, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Research Funding; ACTINUUM: Consultancy, Research Funding; MILTENYI: Consultancy, Research Funding; CELGENE: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tallman:Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Rafael: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bioline rx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioSight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Goldberg:AROG: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Aptose: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celularity: Research Funding.

Abstract: Background: MRD is a powerful prognostic factor in AML. Emerging data indicate that allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) with MRD results in outcomes equivalently poor to alloSCT with morphologic AML (Araki et al., JCO 2016). Genomic predictors of MRD are unclear, and relative efficacy of therapies for MRD remains elusive. Objectives: Here we provide an integrated analysis of responses for 163 patients (pts) who underwent induction chemotherapy with baseline next-generation sequencing (NGS) followed by serial immunophenotypic monitoring for MRD. Methods:163 patients starting in April 2014 who underwent induction chemotherapy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were retrospectively studied. All received anthracycline + cytarabine, with or without investigational agents. Immunophenotypic MRD was identified in bone marrow aspirates (BMA) by multiparameter flow cytometry. Any level of residual disease was considered MRD+. Molecular analysis was obtained from pre-induction BMA by NGS using 28 or 49 gene panels. Cytogenetics/FISH were performed using standard techniques. Results: Patient characteristics are in Table 1. 7/163 (4.9%) died within 30 days of induction.153 pts had BM biopsy after induction prior to further therapy. 124/153 underwent flow after induction. 65/124 (52.4%) achieved CR/CRi after induction alone, 31/124 (25%) MRD+CR/CRi, and 34/124 (27.4%) MRD-CR/CRi. Pre-induction molecular analysis from 126 suggests that certain cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities correlate with achievement of MRD-CR. (Figure 1) Only 2/25 (8%) with RUNX1, 0/13 with SF3B1, and 0/11 with TP53 mutations achieved MRD-CR/CRi as best response after 1 cycle of induction. Only 3 additional RUNX1, 2 SF3B1, and 0/11 TP53 achieved MRD-CR/CRi as best response after a second cycle of therapy. In contrast, 7/8 with CBF AML (inv16 and no KIT mutation, n=4) or (t(8;21), n=3) achieved MRD-CR/CRi (n=5) or CR without flow (n=2) after 1 cycle of induction. 91/163 (55.8%) underwent alloSCT following induction or additional therapy. Post-alloSCT follow-up indicates potential value in converting MRD+ to MRD-. 84/91 were evaluable for MRD with flow cytometry prior to alloSCT. 41/84 (48.8%) were MRD-, 30/84 (35.7%) MRD+, and 13/84 (15.4%) persistent AML. 13/41 (31.7%) MRD-pre-alloSCT were MRD- post-induction. 28/41 (68.2%) MRD+ or persistent AML converted to MRD- prior to alloSCT following additional therapy. 23/29 MRD+CR/CRi pts after induction were intermediate/unfavorable and therefore transplant candidates. 19/23 MRD+CR/CRi intermediate/unfavorable underwent transplant (9 without post-induction therapy, 10 after consolidation), while 4 did not proceed to transplant due to relapse after induction (n=1), relapse after consolidation (n=2), and patient preference. There was no significant difference in post-transplant OS between early MRD-CR immediately following induction and later conversion to MRD-CR prior to alloSCT (Figure 1B). Post-transplant analysis reveals that most pts who enter transplant with persistent AML (n=13) or MRD+ (n=30) clear MRD (30/43, 69.7%) by the first post-transplant BM (median 32 days, Figure 1C). Despite initial post-transplant MRD clearance, pts who entered alloSCT with persistent AML or MRD+ had poorer post-transplant OS compared to pts who entered alloSCT with MRD- (p=0.02, Figure 1D). Conclusion: Our data show that AML pts with specific molecular mutations (RUNX1, SF3B1, and TP53) are unlikely to achieve MRD-CR/CRi after induction chemotherapy. We further show that additional therapy such as consolidation may be advantageous for some MRD+ pts to achieve MRD-CR prior to alloSCT, although others remain resistant to MRD clearance. Post-transplant OS is improved in pts who are MRD- at time of transplant, regardless of whether they required additional therapy beyond induction to achieve this state. Our results suggest that development of MRD-eradicating therapies after AML induction has the potential to improve post-transplant outcomes. Disclosures Goldberg: AROG: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Arcila:Invivoscribe, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Perales:Takeda: Other: Personal fees; Merck: Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Other: Personal fees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees and Clinical trial support; Novartis: Other: Personal fees. Tallman:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board; Cellerant: Research Funding; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; AROG: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding.

Abstract: Background Measurable residual disease (MRD) is associated with inferior outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). MRD monitoring enhances risk stratification and may guide therapeutic intervention. Post-induction MRD is frequently cleared with further therapy and the clearance may lead to better outcomes. In contrast, persistent MRD is associated with poor outcomes. At present it is not possible to predict which patients are likely to clear MRD with further therapy. Here we report a simple, objective, widely applicable and quantitative MFC approach using the ratio of blast/PDC to predict persistent MRD and poor outcomes in AML. Patients and Methods A cohort of 136 adult patients with a confirmed diagnosis of AML by WHO criteria who underwent standard induction therapy at a single center between 4/2014 and 9/2017 was initially included. 69 patients achieved complete morphologic remission (36 MRD-neg. and 33 MRD-pos.). MRD status was assessed by MFC using a different from normal (DfN) approach. PDC were quantified as the percent of total WBC by flow cytometry based on low side scatter, moderate CD45, CD303, bright CD123 and HLA-DR expression. Results The proportion of PDC was markedly decreased in patients with AML (≥20% blasts) (N=136) with a median of 0.016% (interquartile range IQR: 0.0019%-0.071%, Figure 1A), more than 10-fold lower than observed in normal controls (median 0.23%, IQR 0.17%-0.34%) (N=20). While there was no difference between MRD-neg. and normal control groups (median 0.31%, IQR: 0.17%-0.49%; vs. 0.28%, IQR: 0.17%-0.34%), MRD-pos. group had significantly reduced PDC proportion compared to the control (median 0.074%, IQR: 0.022%-0.33%, Wilcoxon rank sum, p=0.019). In an attempt to achieve better separation and to eliminate possible effects of hemodilution, the ratio of blast/PDC was calculated by using the proportions of blasts and PDCs out of total WBCs as quantitated by flow cytometry. A cut-off threshold of the blast/PDC ratio of 10 was chosen to separate each group (Figure 1B). Importantly, a ratio cut-off of 10 had a corresponding specificity of 97.4% for predicting MRD positivity status. MRD positivity was significantly associated with inferior overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) in our study cohort (OS HR 4.11 (95% CI: 1.30-13.03), p=0.016; RFS HR 4.20 (95% CI: 1.49-11.82), p=0.007, Figure 1C and D). The 2-year cumulative incidence of relapse in the MRD-neg. group compared to MRD-pos. group was 10% (95% CI: 2-24%) vs. 37% (95% CI: 18-56%, p=0.014). Importantly, blast/PDC ratio ≥10 was also strongly associated with inferior OS and RFS (OS HR 3.12 (95% CI: 1.13-8.60), p= 0.028; RFS HR 4.05 (95% CI: 1.63-10.11), p=0.003, Figure 1E and F), which is similar in magnitude to MRD positivity. Furthermore, MRD-pos. patients with blast/PDC ratio 〈 10 had 4 times higher MRD clearance rate than MRD-pos. patients with a ratio ≥10 (6/11, 55% vs 2/17, 12%, Fisher exactp=0.02). Conclusion We have established an objective and quantitative MFC method to risk stratify post induction AML patients by risk for relapse, MRD clearance and likelihood of survival. Loss of PDC correlates with residual leukemia, is highly specific for MRD positivity in post-induction patients, and strongly predicts poorer overall survival and higher likelihood of relapse. Loss of PDC also predicts persistent MRD in post-induction MRD-pos. patients despite further therapy, suggesting that MRD-pos. patients with normal PDC may benefit from further therapy prior to transplant, while MRD-pos. patients with loss of PDC may not. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Goldberg: AROG: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Geyer:Dava Oncology: Honoraria. Levine:Isoplexis: Equity Ownership; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Honoraria; Qiagen: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prelude: Research Funding; Imago: Equity Ownership; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Epizyme: Patents & Royalties; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tallman:BioSight: Other: Advisory board; AROG: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board.

Abstract: Azacitidine + venetoclax, decitabine + venetoclax, and low-dose cytarabine + venetoclax are now standard treatments for newly diagnosed older or unfit patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Although these combinations are also commonly used in relapsed or refractory AML (RR-AML), clinical and molecular predictors of response and survival in RR-AML are incompletely understood. We retrospectively analyzed clinical and molecular characteristics and outcomes for 86 patients with RR-AML who were treated with venetoclax combinations. The complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) rate was 24%, and the overall response rate was 31% with the inclusion of a morphologic leukemia-free state. Azacitidine + venetoclax resulted in higher response rates compared with low-dose cytarabine + venetoclax (49% vs 15%; P = .008). Median overall survival (OS) was 6.1 months, but it was significantly longer with azacitidine + venetoclax compared with low-dose cytarabine + venetoclax (25 vs 3.9 months; P = .003). This survival advantage of azacitidine + venetoclax over low-dose cytarabine + venetoclax persisted when patients were censored for subsequent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (8.1 vs 3.9 months; P = .035). Mutations in NPM1 were associated with higher response rates, whereas adverse cytogenetics and mutations in TP53, KRAS/NRAS, and SF3B1 were associated with worse OS. Relapse was driven by diverse mechanisms, including acquisition of novel mutations and an increase in cytogenetic complexity. Venetoclax combination therapy is effective in many patients with RR-AML, and pretreatment molecular characteristics may predict outcomes. Trials that evaluate novel agents in combination with venetoclax therapy in patients with RR-AML that have adverse risk genomic features are warranted.

Abstract: Background: Venetoclax combined with azacitidine (aza/ven), decitabine (dec/ven), and low-dose cytarabine (LDAC/ven) is commonly used off-label in relapsed/refractory (RR)-AML patients; however, predictors of response and survival are incompletely understood. Objectives: To report clinical outcomes of RR-AML patients (pts) treated with venetoclax combination therapy and to analyze molecular predictors of these outcomes. Methods: All pts with RR-AML, who received treatment with aza/ven, dec/ven or LDAC/ven from 08/2016 to 02/2020 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City were included. The best response to therapy was determined using the 2017 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) response criteria. The overall response rate (ORR) was defined as the combination of the complete response (CR) + complete response with incomplete count recovery (CRi) + morphologic leukemia free state (MLFS) rate. Measurable residual disease (MRD) was assessed by multiparameter flow cytometric analysis of bone marrow aspirate samples and any level of residual disease was considered MRD+. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from cycle 1 day 1 of therapy until death or time of last follow-up. Results: A total of 86 pts were treated with venetoclax-based combination therapy (A). Median age was 67 years. More than half of the pts had received prior HMA therapy, 17% had received a prior allogeneic stem cell transplant. The majority of pts received aza/ven (41%) while 23% and 31% received dec/ven and LDAC/ven, respectively. Treatment trajectories of all patients are shown in the Swimmers' plot in panel (B). While the ORR was 31% and 24% of patients achieved a CR/CRi, 60% of pts were refractory to venetoclax therapy; 45% of responding pts eventually relapsed with a median follow up of 12 months (B, C). Oncoprint showing associations between molecular patterns and response to venetoclax combination therapy is shown in panel (D). Mutations in NPM1 (CR/CRi 46%, ORR 62%; OR 4.53, 95% CI 1.31-15.66, p=0.02) and IDH1 (CR/CRi 56%, ORR 67%; OR 5.3, 95% CI 1.21-23.24, p=0.03) but not in IDH2 (CR/CRi 40%, ORR 40%; OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.49-4.99, p=0.54) were associated with statistically significantly increased response rates. Adverse cytogenetics predicted lower odds of response (CR/CRi 11%, ORR 20%; OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11-0.9, p=0.03). While TP53 (0%), NRAS/KRAS (20%/0%), SF3B1 (0%), ASXL1 (17%) and EZH2 (0%) mutations were associated with low response rates, due to small sample size, these associations were not statistically significant. Median OS for all pts was 6.1 months (95%CI: 4.9-10 month) (E). Pts who were treated with aza/ven had a median OS of 25 months (95% CI 5.8 months-NR), as compared to 5.4 months for patients treated with dec/ven (95% CI 3.9 months-NR; HR 1.63, p=0.2) and 3.9 months for patients treated with LDAC/ven (OS 3.9 months, 95% CI 2.5-8.3 months; HR 2.71, p=0.002). Presence of adverse cytogenetics, TP53 and KRAS/NRAS mutations was associated with poor OS (4.1 months, 95% CI 3.2-6.1 months) compared to a favorable OS when these features were absent (15 months, 95% CI 7.1 months-NA, p=0.001; F). In contrast, presence of mutations in IDH1/2, NPM1 or STAG2 was associated with prolonged OS (15 months, 95% CI 7.1 months-NA) whereas absence of these favorable mutations predicted poor OS (4.4 months, 95% CI 3.5-6.4 months, p=0.0051). Additionally, EZH2 (HR 4.13, p=0.01; H) and SF3B1 (HR 2.5, p=0.02; I) mutations predicted worse OS. Conclusion: Response rates to venetoclax combination therapy in RR-AML pts appeared lower than what has been reported for AML pts who receive venetoclax therapy as first line treatment. However, response rates were high and survival favorable for RR-AML pts with mutations in NPM1, IDH1 and STAG2. In contrast, RR-AML pts with high-risk molecular features such as adverse cytogenetics and mutations in TP53, KRAS/NRAS, EZH2 and SF3B1 had poor outcomes. Clinical trials combining aza/ven with novel therapeutics targeting specific adverse molecular characteristics are urgently needed to improve the outcomes of venetoclax therapy in RR-AML patients. Figure Disclosures Xiao: Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Glass:Gerson Lehman Group: Consultancy. King:Abbvie: Other: advisory board. Abdel-Wahab:Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Envisagenics Inc.: Current equity holder in private company; H3 Biomedicine Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; Isoplexis: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria; Imago: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Loxo: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Qiagen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stein:Amgen: Consultancy; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biotheryx: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Syndax: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Tallman:UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioline rx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Rafael: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; BioSight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Goldberg:Aptose: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; AROG: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celularity: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: venetoclax therapy for the treatment for realpsed and treatment refractory AML