Abstract: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with high-risk genomic features achieve poor outcomes with traditional therapies. A phase I study of a pharmacokinetically derived schedule of flavopiridol suggested promising activity in CLL, irrespective of high-risk features. Given the relevance of these findings to treating genetically high-risk CLL, a prospective confirmatory study was initiated. Patients and Methods Patients with relapsed CLL were treated with single-agent flavopiridol, with subsequent addition of dexamethasone to suppress cytokine release syndrome (CRS). High-risk genomic features were prospectively assessed for response to therapy. Results Sixty-four patients were enrolled. Median age was 60 years, median number of prior therapies was four, and all patients had received prior purine analog therapy. If patients tolerated treatment during week 1, dose escalation occurred during week 2. Dose escalation did not occur in four patients, as a result of severe tumor lysis syndrome; three of these patients required hemodialysis. Thirty-four patients (53%) achieved response, including 30 partial responses (PRs; 47%), three nodular PRs (5%), and one complete response (1.6%). A majority of high-risk patients responded; 12 (57%) of 21 patients with del(17p13.1) and 14 (50%) of 28 patients with del(11q22.3) responded irrespective of lymph node size. Median progression-free survival among responders was 10 to 12 months across all cytogenetic risk groups. Reducing the number of weekly treatments per cycle from four to three and adding prophylactic dexamethasone, which abrogated interleukin-6 release and CRS (P ≤ .01), resulted in improved tolerability and treatment delivery. Conclusion Flavopiridol achieves significant clinical activity in patients with relapsed CLL, including those with high-risk genomic features and bulky lymphadenopathy. Subsequent clinical trials should use the amended treatment schedule developed herein and prophylactic corticosteroids.

Abstract: The authors report the interaction between Down syndrome, a major genetic leukemia predisposition condition, and inherited genetic alleles associated with increased susceptibility to childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Abstract: To analyze the prevalence and clinical implications of Wilms' tumor 1 (WT1) single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs16754 in the context of other prognostic markers in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients and Methods Available diagnostic marrow specimens (n = 790) from 1,328 patients enrolled in three consecutive Children's Cancer Group/Children's Oncology Group trials were analyzed for the presence of SNP rs16754. SNP status was correlated with disease characteristics, WT1 expression level, and clinical outcome. Results SNP rs16754 was present in 229 (29%) of 790 patients. The SNP was significantly more common in Asian and Hispanic patients and less common in white patients (P 〈 .001). SNP rs16754 was also less common in patients with inv(16) (P = .043) and more common in patients with −5/del(5q) (P = .047). WT1 expression levels were significantly higher in patients with rs16754 or with WT1 mutations compared with WT1 wild-type patients (P = .021). Five-year overall survival (OS) for patients with and without the SNP was 60% and 50%, respectively (P = .031). Prognostic assessment by risk group demonstrated that in patients with low-risk disease, OS for those with and without SNP rs16754 was 90% versus 64% (P 〈 .001) with a corresponding disease-free survival of 72% versus 53% (P = .041). Conclusion The presence of SNP rs16754 was an independent predictor of improved OS; outcome differences were most pronounced in the low-risk subgroup. The high prevalence of WT1 SNP rs16754, and its correlation with improved outcome, identifies WT1 SNP rs16754 as a potentially important molecular marker of prognosis in pediatric AML.

Abstract: Background: Relapsed CLL patients (pts) with del(17p13) and other high-risk genetic features respond poorly to most standard therapies. Flavopiridol (alvocidib) induces p53-independent apoptosis of CLL cells in vitro. We previously conducted a phase I study of flavopiridol using a pharmacokinetically (PK) derived dosing schedule of 30-min IV bolus (IVB) followed by 4-hr continuous IV infusion (CIVI). Clinical activity (response rate 45%) was seen in high-risk pts, but several pts required hemodialysis for severe tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) and hyperkalemia. Study Design and Treatment: We report preliminary results of an ongoing phase II study of flavopiridol in relapsed CLL. Pts with symptomatic, relapsed CLL who have failed (or could not receive) fludarabine and have WBC 〈 200 × 109/L are eligible. Pts receive flavopiridol by 30-min IVB followed by 4-hr CIVI weekly for 4 doses, every 6 weeks for up to 6 cycles. Pts receive 30 mg/m2 IVB + 30 mg/m2 CIVI for dose 1, and pts receive 30 mg/m2 IVB + 50 mg/m2 CIVI with the second and all subsequent doses if severe TLS is not observed. Results: We report results of the first 31 pts (19 male). Median age was 65 years (range, 41–82), with 9 pts ≥ 70 years of age. Median number of prior therapies was 6 (range, 1–11), and 30 pts had failed fludarabine. Pts had bulky Rai stage I/II (n=5), III (n=5) or IV (n=21) disease, and 27 pts had bulky lymphadenopathy ≥ 5 cm. Therapy was well tolerated. No patients required hemodialysis, and toxicity was otherwise similar to the phase I study. Cytokine release syndrome related to interleukin (IL)-6 was observed in a majority of pts, and symptoms responded to dexamethasone. Pts received a median of 3 cycles (range, 0.25–6). Two pts completed all 6 cycles, and 2 pts continue to receive therapy. The most common reasons for early discontinuation of therapy were failure to respond (n=11) and patient choice (n=6). Fifteen of 31 pts responded (48%) by NCI Working Group criteria; 13 pts achieved a partial response (PR), and 2 pts attained CR. One CR pt achieved a flow negative bone marrow (BM), and the other CR pt had 〈 1% residual CLL in BM by flow cytometry. Five of 9 pts with del(17p13) responded (56%), 5 of 15 pts with del(11q22) responded (33%), and 7 of 18 pts with a complex karyotype responded (39%). Follow-up remains short, but progression-free survival will be updated. Conclusions: This study confirms the significant clinical activity of flavopiridol in heavily pretreated, relapsed CLL pts with bulky adenopathy and poor-risk cytogenetic features. Furthermore, 2 pts achieved CR, including 1 pt with flow-negative BM. Limiting eligibility to WBC 〈 200 × 109/L improved safety, and no pts required dialysis. However, cytokine release syndrome related to IL-6 was common and caused pts to elect to end therapy. Therefore, this study has been amended to give prophylactic dexamethasone, and the schedule has been shortened with the use of prophylactic pegfilgrastim, in order to improve tolerability. Accrual to the amended study is ongoing.

Abstract: Ibrutinib combined with ofatumumab in relapsed CLL had had an ORR of 83% with median time to response of 〈 3 months in all groups. All 3 sequences of administration were acceptably tolerated and active; responses were durable, and median PFS was not yet reached.

Abstract: Purpose: Analysis of patients with late relapse (LR) of germ cell tumor (GCT) with reports on clinical characteristics, outcomes, and molecular and cytogenetic features. Patients and Methods: Eighty-three patients evaluated at Indiana University from 1993 through 2000 for relapse of GCT more than 2 years from initial therapy were reviewed. Available specimens were investigated for expression of the transcription regulator FoxD3 and apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease and the presence of chromosome 12 abnormalities. Results: Median interval from initial presentation to LR was 85 months. Forty-three of 49 LR patients who underwent surgery were rendered disease free (NED), and 20 (46.5%) remain continuously NED. Thirty-two patients received chemotherapy, but only six (18.8%) obtained a complete remission. Five of these patients remain continuously NED after chemotherapy alone, including three who were chemotherapy naïve. Eighteen of these 32 patients were successfully rendered NED by postchemotherapy surgery, and 12 remain continuously NED. Two patients continue on observation with no treatment for their LR. Overall, 69 of the 81 treated patients (85.2%) ultimately achieved an NED state, and 38 (46.9%) remain continuously NED with median follow-up from LR therapy of 24.5 months (range, 1 to 83 months), whereas nine other patients are currently NED after therapy for subsequent relapses. Because of the small numbers of specimens tested, we were unable to draw any definitive conclusions from the molecular and cytogenetic analyses. Conclusion: GCT patients require lifetime follow-up. At the time of LR, surgical resection alone remains our preferred therapy.

Abstract: Introduction: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A041202 is a NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study (NCT01886872) comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), and whether rituximab adds benefit to ibrutinib therapy. Initial results showed that ibrutinib-containing regimens had superior PFS to CIT, and that rituximab added to ibrutinib did not improve PFS over ibrutinib alone. Pts and Methods: Eligible pts on A041202 were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl & gt; 40 mL/min, bilirubin & lt; 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified on Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. Pts on Arm 1 who progressed could cross over to Arm 2. Here we present an updated analysis after the third planned interim analysis of Arms 2 and 3 versus Arm 1, and at the second planned interim analysis for Arms 3 vs 2. PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and corresponding hazard ratios with p-values were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. These data encompass patient visits through April 2020 and were locked 15 February 2021. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Baseline characteristics have previously been reported; briefly, median age was 71 years, 53% had unmethylated Zap-70, 61% were IGHV unmutated (performed in 66% of patients), 6% had del(17p) and 20% del(11q) by central FISH. Stimulated karyotype was performed centrally and revealed ≥ 3 abnormalities in 27%, and ≥ 5 in 11% of patients. With median follow-up of 55 months (mo), median PFS was 44 mo (95% CI 38-54) in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 [Arm 2 vs 1 hazard ratio (HR): 0.36, 95% CI 0.26-0.52, p & lt;0.0001; Arm 3 vs 1 HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.51, p & lt;0.0001; Arms 3 vs 2 HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66-1.48, p=0.96]. 48-month PFS estimates were 47%, 76% and 76% in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively (Figure 1). At this time, there are no significant differences in overall survival (OS) among arms (p=0.49). 48-month OS estimates were 84%, 85%, and 86% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Figure 2). The benefit of ibrutinib regimens over CIT, with no additional benefit of rituximab when combined with ibrutinib, was consistent for all subgroups of patients defined by TP53 abnormalities, del(11q), complex karyotype, and IGHV (Figure 3). No significant interaction effects were observed between treatment arm and del(11q), complex karyotype, or IGHV. However, greater benefit of ibrutinib regimens over CIT was observed among patients with TP53 abnormalities than without (p & lt;0.001). Thus in Arm 1, PFS was significantly worse for those with TP53 abnormalities vs without (HR 5.32, 95% CI 3.05-9.27, p & lt;0.0001), but in Arms 2 and 3 combined, there was no significant difference in PFS by presence/absence of TP53 abnormalities (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51-1.91, p=0.98). Notable adverse events with ibrutinib include atrial fibrillation or flutter (afib) and hypertension (HTN). All grade afib was seen in 11 pts on BR (6%) and 67 pts on ibrutinib (19%). All grade HTN was seen in 95 pts on BR (54%) and 263 pts on ibrutinib (73%). Conclusions: This update of the A041202 trial continues to show that ibrutinib regimens prolong PFS over BR for older patients with treatment-naïve CLL. With longer follow-up, these benefits continue to be seen across subgroups, including those associated with higher risk disease. Strikingly, within the ibrutinib arms, there does not appear to be inferior PFS for patients with abnormalities in TP53, the highest risk feature seen in CLL, and a predictor of inferior PFS with ibrutinib in relapsed CLL. This differentiates ibrutinib (and perhaps BTKi in general) from other targeted therapy paradigms for treatment-naïve CLL. Similar to prior studies, rates of afib and HTN continue to increase with time on therapy. These data support the use of ibrutinib as initial therapy in CLL, and strengthen the rationale for use of ibrutinib for high risk disease. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org, Pharmacyclics, Inc Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Woyach: Gilead Sciences Inc: Other: Data & Safety; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Other: Advisory Committee; AbbVie Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Janssen Biotech Inc, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company,: Consultancy. Ruppert: Telios Pharma: Consultancy. Ding: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bartlett: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Brander: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Biosimilars outcomes research panel; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics/Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LOXO: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; NCCN: Other: panel member; ArQule/Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: informCLL registry steering committee, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Barr: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Rogers: Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; ovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coutre: Acerta: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Larson: Epizyme: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; CVS/Caremark: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding. Erba: AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; ALX Oncology; Amgen Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; FORMA Therapeutics; Forty Seven Inc; Gilead Sciences Inc; GlycoMimetics Inc; ImmunoGen Inc; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; MacroGenics Inc; Novartis; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Astellas; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Genentech, a member of the Roche Group; GlycoMimetics Inc; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Kura Oncology; Nov: Other: Advisory Committee. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Blachly: INNATE: Consultancy, Honoraria; KITE: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Owen: Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Abramson: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Brown: Abbvie, Acerta/Astra-Zeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys AG, Nextcea, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel: Consultancy; Invectys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee Service; Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, SecuraBio, Sun, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Stone: Onconova: Consultancy; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Byrd: Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract: Contemporary risk stratification algorithms commonly use threshold-defined categories of clinically relevant risk factors. The Children's Oncology Group (COG) uses National Cancer Institute (NCI) risk group (RG), cytogenetics, and early response to therapy measured by minimal residual disease (MRD) using flow cytometry on day 8 peripheral blood (D8 PB) and day 29 bone marrow (D29 BM). However, it is unclear whether assigning different weights to individual risk factors, as well as using numerical values as continuous, rather than categorical, would more accurately predict relapse risk. Previous work (Loh, ASH 2020) described validation of a continuous prognostic index (PI) for risk of relapse published by UK investigators incorporating favorable and unfavorable genetics, white blood cell count (WBC), and D29 BM as continuous variables (O'Connor, JCO 2018; Enshaei, Blood 2020), and assessed the added value of D8 PB. We now extend this work by comparing patient outcomes with current COG risk classification to PI-derived risk classifications on the previously described population (Loh, ASH 2020). We first retrospectively classified patients (pts) (N=21,199 from prior COG trials AALL0331/0232 or AALL0932/1131 enrolled 2004-2019) in our analysis population using the COG risk stratification algorithm employed in the current generation of COG trials. Pts with Down syndrome or BCR/ABL1 were excluded. We classified our analysis population as SR-Favorable [SR-Fav, 24.5% (5-year relapse free survival (RFS) probability 0.97)], SR-Favorable/Average (not distinguishable because of missing D8 PB) [SR-Fav/Avg, 5.3% (.96)] , SR-Avg [20.5% (0.93)], SR-High [12.5% (0.83)] , HR-Fav [3.0% (0.96)], HR [29.6% (0.82)] , and Very HR [VHR, 1.1% (0.54)] according to NCI RG, CNS status, cytogenetics, D8 PB where relevant, D29 BM, and EOC MRD. Ninety-seven percent of pts had sufficient data to be retrospectively classified and thus 20,176 pts were considered for subsequent analyses. We next developed a multivariable model for RFS using log transformed MRD (τ(MRD)). Temporal external validation was first employed by developing models considering AALL0932/1131 data (n=12,453) and then validating them with AALL0331/0232 data (n=7,723). Of the full cohort of 20,176 pts, 24.4% could not be classified by COG PI, primarily due to missing D8 PB MRD which was not assessed routinely in earlier studies; thus the model was developed on 11,151 pts and validated on 4,103 pts. The COG PI (PI COG) was calculated using the equation [τ(d8 MRD) x -0.036 + τ(d29 MRD) x -0.119 + CYTO-GR x -0.914 + CYTO-HR x 0.752 + WBC log x 0.178]. The UK PI (PI UK) was also calculated using published coefficients [τ(d29 MRD) x -0.218 + CYTO-GR x -0.440 + CYTO-HR x 1.066 + WBC log x 0.138] for comparison to assess the practical significance of adding D8 PB. In contrast to the UK method, we identified risk groups by selecting PI cutoffs that maximized the discrimination of the predictive model as quantified by the concordance probability estimator (CPE) (Barrio, SORT 2017). This objective method of cutpoint determination allows for risk group definition without investigator agreement on exact prespecified risk group characteristics; this method also defined four risk groups (Low, Standard, Intermediate, and High). Cutpoints derived from the two different indices, applied to the pts who could be classified by PI COG (n=15,254), resulted in different proportions of pts in each of the risk groups with generally similar RFS estimates for each group. Using cutpoints estimated for PI COG (-2.073, -1.307, and -0.857) 36.0% (RFS = 0.97) were classified as low, 29.6% (0.93) standard, 17.1% (0.88) intermediate, and 17.4% (0.73) high risk of relapse. For PI UK ( -2.916, -2.534, and -1.15), among those who were classifiable by PI COG, 33.4% (0.97) were classified as low, 26.3% (0.93) standard, 30% (0.87) intermediate, and 10.4% (0.69) high. Finally, we compared the COG risk stratification to PI CPE-defined risk stratification in the cohort. As shown in the table, PI COG improves discrimination among individuals by identifying groups with different relapse risk than expected. The PI COG can thus identify patients for whom therapeutic intensification may not result in significantly better outcomes while improving the discrimination of HR pts to allow randomized interventions with achievable hazard ratios. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Loh: MediSix therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Borowitz: Amgen, Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria. Zweidler-McKay: ImmunoGen: Current Employment. Mullighan: AbbVie: Research Funding; Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Illumina: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding. Hunger: Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Raetz: Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: DSMB member.