Berenzon, Dmitriy

Abstract We conducted a two-stage Simon phase II, multi-center study in two groups: related and unrelated donor transplants. Based on the results of a previously conducted prospective study (MPD-RC 101, Rondelli et al, Blood, 2014) demonstrating relatively poor outcome in the unrelated donor arm due to high non-relapse mortality and graft failure (GF), we sought to improve this noted disparate outcome. The hypothesis driving this trial was that pre-transplant JAK1/2 inhibition would result in an increase in performance status, reduction in splenomegaly and inflammatory cytokine expression leading to improved HCT outcome. In the unrelated arm in the first 11 patients, the trial was to be terminated if 6 or more failures (GF or death due to any cause by 100 days post-transplant) were observed. In the related arm in the first 11 patients, the trial was to be terminated if 3 or more failures were observed. Key eligibility criteria included diagnosis of primary MF or post-PV MF or post-ET MF, age 18-70 years, and DIPSS int-2/high risk disease or int-1 risk disease with at least one additional risk factor. Patients could have received up to 6 months of ruxolitinib prior to enrollment provided that there was no evidence of loss of response to ruxolitinib during this period. Ruxolitinib was given for 56 days followed by a 4-day taper ending day -6. The conditioning regimen utilized was IV fludarabine 40 mg/m2 IV and IV busulfan 2.0 mg/KBW IV once daily for 4 days from days -5 to -2. GVHD prophylaxis consisted of cyclosporine or tacrolimus and methotrexate. Patients undergoing unrelated donor HCT also received low dose thymoglobulin (0.5 mg/KBW on day -3/2.0 mg/KBW on day -2 & day -1). The study has enrolled 21 patients (related, 7; unrelated, 14) with a median age of 59 years (range 39-70). 17 (81%) patients had palpable splenomegaly with median spleen size of 11 cm, and 16 patients had int-2/high risk disease. Of the 21 patients, 19 patients received transplantation (related 5/7 [71%], unrelated 14/14 [100%] underwent transplant). Two patients in the related arm did not proceed with transplantation as one progressed to acute myeloid leukemia (baseline blast count 14%) and another experienced sudden death of unknown cause the day after starting ruxolitinib. In addition, there was one GF in the related arm. Due to these 3 failures in the related arm, further enrollment was stopped in this arm per protocol criteria. In the unrelated arm, there were 4 failures (Table 1), and the study met the protocol criteria for further enrollment. Mean percent reduction from baseline to day -9 in palpable spleen length below the left costal margin was 30% (p=0.04) in 12 patients with palpable spleen. 5/12 (42%) had any reduction, and 4/12 (33%) had ≥50% reduction. From baseline to best score on day -9 or day -5, 11/19 (58%) patients with data had any improvement in MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score, and 7/19 (37%) had ≥50% reduction. Of the 19 patients undergoing transplant, ruxolitinib was tapered off successfully in all patients with no significant withdrawal syndrome or delay in transplant noted. In the pre-transplant phase, most common Grade 3 or higher toxicity considered to be related to ruxolitinib was anemia (6/21, 29%), and one patient had legionella pneumonia deemed not related to ruxolitinib. Median time to neutrophil recovery (> 0.5 x 109/L) and platelet recovery (>20 x 109/L) was 19 and 19.5 days. By day 100, 7/19 (37%) experienced Grade 2-4 acute GVHD (G2 in 5, G3 in 2). In the first 30 days post HCT, most common Grade 3 or higher toxicity was febrile neutropenia seen in 5/19 (26%) patients. In all 21 patients from time of registration with median follow-up of 5.8 months, 6-mo overall survival was 75% (95% CI 44-90%). For the 19 transplant recipients, 6-mo OS was 83% (95% CI 55-94%) from date of transplant. Conclusions: Stage 1 trial results highlight important observations. First, ruxolitinib may not be suitable for all myelofibrosis patients pre-transplant, eg, alternative approaches might be more appropriate in the context of accelerating disease. Second, we demonstrated a safe approach for tapering ruxolitinib prior to transplant which allowed patients to commence conditioning with reduced spleen size and symptoms. Third, pre-transplant ruxolitinib does not appear to have any adverse impact on early post-HCT outcomes following unrelated donor transplant, although Stage 2 enrollment will be required to better assess the potential benefits of this approach. Disclosures Gupta: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding. Yacoub:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Honoraria. Mesa:Promedior: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Mead:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mascarenhas:Novartis: Other: DSMB , Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Clinical Trial Steereing Committee, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) suffer from difficult MPN associated symptoms which impact quality of life (QoL). The impact of initial cytoreduction on ET/PV symptoms, resulting toxicity and QoL have not been prospectively studied. Methods: MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) randomized 168 therapy-naive (hydroxyurea [HU] <3 mo) high risk ET/PV pts (<5 years of disease) to response adjusted pegylated interferon alpha 2a (PEG) or HU. MPN symptoms, in depth toxicity assessment, and QoL were measured by two symptom instruments (MPN-SAF, EORTC QLQ-C30: baseline,3, 6, 9, and 12 mo) and toxicity questions. Blinded response review by European Leukemia Net (ELN) hematological responses (HR) was conducted at 12 months. Individual time point and longitudinal group comparisons were based on mixed models adjusting for age. Results: Patients: Of 168 randomized pts (86 HU, 82 PEG), 164 (98%) completed the survey package at baseline and 151 (HU 83%; PEG 98%) completed at least 1 survey during treatment. Median age was 61 (range 18-87) with 70 (42%) females; 81 (48%) / 87 (52%) with ET / PV; 46 (27%) had a history of a thrombosis. 119 (71%) received prior HU (up to 3 months). Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms with the exception of age (median HU 63 vs. PEG 60 yrs; p=0.02). Baseline Symptom Burden /QoL: Mean MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS), scale 0 [absent]-100 [worst imaginable] was 15.8 (SD 12.6; range 0-62.0) with means of 15.1 (SD 12.6) / 16.5 (SD 12.6) for ET / PV which were slightly lower than reported means of a previous cohort receiving any line of treatment (Scherber RM, JCO 2012). Median number of moderate (defined as score >=3) symptoms in ET patients was 3.0 and PV 4.0. Most common moderate symptoms were fatigue (65.9%), insomnia (37.2%), numbness (33.5%) , itching (29.9%), dizziness (27.4%), early satiety (26.8%) , headache (23.2%), sad mood (23.2%), inactivity (22%), concentration (20.7%). 50.6% of patients had one or more symptom with a score >=6. Mean QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL (GHS/QoL) was 70.8 (SD 21.9) - comparable to a general population (mean 71.2, SD 22.4) and better than a general cancer population (mean 61.3, SD 24.2; QLQ-C30 Reference Manual 2008). At baseline, TSS, symptoms, and QoL were similar between treatment arms. In patients with TSS >20 at baseline (highly symptomatic, n=50; ET:20, PV:30), median TSS was 28.0 (range 20.0 to 62.0); the highest scored symptom was fatigue (median=7.0), itching (median=4.5) and insomnia (median=4.0). Impact of Therapy on Symptom Burden/QoL: On HU, pts experienced worsening QoL (physical, cognitive functioning, HRQoL) and some persistent or transient worsened symptoms (inactivity, concentration (p<0.05) (Table 1)). On PEG, pts experienced worsening of fever, dyspnea, appetite loss and PEG-related symptoms including flu-like symptoms, injection site irritation, blurry vision, and visual changes (all p<0.05), but not sad mood (not corrected for antidepressants). In comparing arms, change in TSS significantly differed (p=0.01) between arms with increasing symptoms on HU vs PEG at 3 and 6 mo, but lower symptom burden at 9 and 12 mos (Figure 1). In highly symptomatic pts (with a baseline TSS > 20, n=50), improvements in weight loss, abdominal discomfort, fatigue, itching, fever, early satiety (12 m.) were observed in pts on HU. For PEG, in highly symptomatic pts, improvements were observed for overall TSS score, fatigue, inactivity, night sweats, and itching (with similar toxicities to all PEG patients). ELN Response and Symptom Burden/QoL: Among the 133 pts with 12-mo symptom data, complete hematologic response (CHR) rate was 43%. Inactivity and sad mood were worse in those patient achieving a CHR (inactivity: CHR worsening 0.68 vs PHR/NR better 0.26; p=0.03; sad mood: CHR worsening 0.67 vs PHR/NR better 0.67, p=0.002)). These latter changes were not related to higher doses utilized (in either arm), suggesting obtaining CHR may have negative effects on patient symptoms. Conclusions:In pts with a significant baseline MPN symptom burden, cytoreductive therapy has both a beneficial impact on baseline MPN symptom burden but also leads to therapy associated toxicity, although different patterns of efficacy and toxicity between HU and PEG. Achievement of a CHR in PV/ET may be associated with higher rates of drug related toxicities, and the value of achieving CHR may need further validation. Disclosures Mesa: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Merck: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Rambaldi:Omeros: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Consultancy; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy. Yacoub:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Cara Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Ardelyx, INC.: Equity Ownership; Inycte: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Dynavax: Equity Ownership. Harrison:Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mead:Elstar: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Evotek: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Kessler:Sangamo: Research Funding; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dimension Advisory boards: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DSMB: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Biomarin: Research Funding. Kremyanskaya:Incyte: Research Funding. Rampal:Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Stemline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Hoffman:Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Formation Biologics: Research Funding; Summer Road: Research Funding. Dueck:Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment.

Abstract Background: The Philadelphia chromosome negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), including polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis (PMF), carry a propensity to evolve into an accelerated phase (MPN-AP, 10-19% blasts in the blood or marrow) and blast phase (MPN-BP, ≥20% in the blood or marrow). Such disease evolution carries a dismal prognosis with a median survival of 3-5 months, and thus the development of innovative treatment strategies represents an urgent unmet clinical need. Responses in patients with MPN-AP/BP to both hypomethylating agents and single-agent ruxolitinib (RUX) have been reported. In vitro, the combination of RUX and decitabine (DEC) are synergistically active in cells derived from patients with MPN-BP and from a murine model of MPN-BP. These observations led us to explore the safety of the combination in MPN-AP/BP in a phase I study. An MTD for RUX in combination with DEC 20mg/m2/d x 5 days was not reached in this study and the recommended Phase II dose of RUX was selected as 25mg BID for the first cycle of therapy followed by 10mg BID in subsequent cycles with a goal to minimize myelosuppression and maintain ambulatory administration (Rampal et al ASH 2016). Here we report the final results of the phase 2 combination of RUX + DEC in patients with MPN-AP/BP (NCT02076191). Methods: We conducted a multicenter, open label, phase II trial in patients with MPN-AP/BP, following a previous diagnosis of ET, PV or PMF. Patients enrolled were treated with the RPTD dose of RUX + DEC on a 28-day cycle until progression of disease, unacceptable toxicity or patient/physician withdrawal. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed using the NCI CTCAE v4.0. The primary endpoint was response rate by cycle 6 using modified Cheson criteria: CR required 0% peripheral blood blasts, ANC >1000/uL, hemoglobin ≥10g/L, and platelets ≥100x109/L; CRi required 0% peripheral blood blasts with incomplete count recovery; and PR required ≥50% decrease in peripheral blood blasts regardless of blood counts. Results: A total of 25 patients were accrued to study. The median age was 71 years (46.7-85.6). 10 patients (40%) had MPN-AP and 15 patients (60%) had MPN-BP. 6 patients (24%) had been previously been treated with single-agent RUX, and 2 patients (8%) had been treated with single-agent DEC. Median palpable spleen size was 7cm (range 0 - 20cm). The median number of cycles of treatment received on study was 4 (range 1 - 20). The most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs observed were pneumonia (16%), febrile neutropenia (16%) and infection (8%). The most common grade 3/4 hematologic AEs were anemia (16%), neutropenia (12%) and leukopenia (8%). The most common reasons for study discontinuation were AEs in 9 patients (36%), disease progression in 5 (20%) patients and hematopoietic cell transplantation in 2 (8%) patients. Eighteen (72%) patients were evaluable for response. The overall response rate (CR+CRi+PR) was 61% (11/18 patients). CRi was observed in 2 patients (11%), PR in 9 patients (50%) and no response in 7 patients (39%). The median time to CR/PR was 3.4 mos (95% CI: 2.1 - not estimated). The median peripheral blood blast count reduction was 80.1% (range 71.4-100%) (Figure 1A). The median reduction in spleen size by palpation was 70.5% (range 0-100%) (Figure 1B). Median overall survival for all patients was 7.6 months (95% CI: 4.3 - Not estimated); 9.7 months (95% CI: 4.3 - Not estimated) for MPN-BP and 5.8 months (95% CI: 3.6 - Not estimated) for MPN-AP (Figure 2). Three patients (17%) were able to proceed to HCT. The results of ongoing genomic, histopathologic and cytokine profiling studies will be available for presentation at the meeting. Conclusions: The combination of RUX+DEC has activity in patients with MPN-AP/BP. The drug combination is generally well tolerated and can be administered as an outpatient, a distinct advantage over intensive induction therapies that have not shown significant benefit in these patients. Additional work is ongoing to assess the genomic and clinical variables predictive of response with this combination therapy approach. Given the tolerability and efficacy, this regimen may be of particular benefit to patients who are not candidates for intensive therapies. Disclosures Rampal: Constellation: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Stemline: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mascarenhas:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Wang:Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Gerds:Celgene: Consultancy; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy. Heaney:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Blueprint: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Decipheral: Research Funding. Abboud:Agios: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kremyanskaya:Incyte: Research Funding. Odenike:ABBVIE: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI/Baxalta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotherapy Science: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Levine:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Epizyme: Patents & Royalties; Prelude: Research Funding; Qiagen: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Imago: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Consultancy; Isoplexis: Equity Ownership. Mesa:Novartis: Consultancy; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Dueck:Phytogine: Employment; Bayer: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria. Hoffman:Incyte: Research Funding; Formation Biologics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Summer Road: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction HU is the treatment of choice for patients (pts) with high risk ET/PV, however, PEG has been proposed as an alternative option due to its proposed potential to modify disease course. An interim analysis of MPN-RC 112 (Blood 2016 128:479;) did not reveal a difference in PR/CR rates between HU and PEG therapy after 12 months in the first evaluable 75 pts treated. Here we present the results and long-term follow-up of all pts participating in this pivotal study [NCT01259856]. Methods MPN-RC 112 was a randomized, open label, phase 3 clinical trial comparing HU and PEG in pts with high risk ET/PV. Pts were treated for up to 12 months to achieve PR or CR (ELN/IWG-MRT response criteria). Pts who achieved a PR/CR continued therapy for up to a maximum of 6 years. Minimum follow up was 1 year from the time the last pt was randomized. The primary objective was to compare the CR rate following HU vs. PEG at 12 months with 3 month confirmation. Secondary objectives included a comparison of toxicity and tolerability; PR rates; incidence of specific pre-defined toxicities and tolerance to therapy; impact of therapy on key biomarkers; survival and incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome, myelofibrosis, or leukemic transformation; and incidence of major cardiovascular events. Bone marrow pathologic responses were evaluated by central blinded expert review at baseline, 12, 24 months and end of study. Results The study accrued 168 pts; 86 were randomized to HU and 82 to PEG. A summary of pt baseline characteristics by treatment arm is shown in Table 1 and were well balanced between the treatment arms except for median age which was higher in the HU arm (p=0.02). Median duration of follow up was 89.9 weeks (range, 0 to 292.3) and the median treatment duration was 86.0 weeks (range, 0 to 287.3). At 12 months, the overall response rate (ORR= PR+CR) was 69.8% and 78% for HU and PEG, respectively (p=0.22). Figure 1 shows the distribution of responses stratified by disease type. At 24 months, 59 pts were on treatment with an ORR of 22/25 (88%) for HU and 31/34 (91%) for PEG. When considering all 106 pts who were eligible to receive treatment for 24 months (due to study closure), the ORR was 22/54 (40.7%, PR: 11 (20.4%), CR: 11 (20.4%)) for HU and 31/52 (59.6%, (PR: 15 (28.9%), CR: 16 (30.8%)) for PEG, p=0.04. Best ORR at any time on study was seen in 70.9% and 81.7% of HU and PEG treated pts, respectively, p=0.10. The median maximum change from baseline spleen volume was -6% (-100.0 - +53.8) in 112 evaluable pts and was similar between arms, p=0.99. Bone marrow morphologic responses are shown in Table 2 and the best response (CR) seen at any time on study for ET treated with HU was 52% (12/23) vs PEG 32% (8/25) and for PV treated with HU 19% (6/31) vs PEG 6% (2/34). Cytogenetic analyses at diagnosis were available in 86% (144/168). An abnormal karyotype was seen in 15% (22/144). Five PV and one ET pt lost their chromosomal abnormalities: 3 after one year (HU=1, PEG=2) and three after two years of therapy (HU=2, PEG=1). AE information is available for 162 pts (HU: 80; PEG: 82) (Table 3). Six pts randomized to HU never received treatment due to study withdrawal prior to initiation of treatment. Sixty pts had a grade 3 or higher event [HU: 22 (27.5%) and PEG: 38 (46.3%)]. 28 PV pts had a grade 3/4 [HU: 10 (24.4%) and PEG: 18 (41.9%)]. Four pts had a grade 4/5 event [HU: 3 (7.3%) and PEG: 1 (2.3%)]. 32 ET pts had a grade 3/4 [HU:12 (30.8%) and PEG:20 (51.3%)]. Two pts had a grade 4/5 event [HU:1 (2.6%), PEG:1 (2.6%)]. Additional outcomes of interest on study include one death attributed to new diagnosis of lung cancer (HU:1), progression to myelofibrosis (HU:1), vertebral artery occlusion (HU:1), and cerebral vascular accident (PEG:1). Reasons for study discontinuation are shown in Table 4. The effect of therapy on symptom burden and quality of life will be presented in a companion abstract (Mesa et al). The impact of mutation status on therapeutic outcome as well as the molecular responses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion The final analysis of MPN-RC 112 revealed that the CR rates in pts with high risk ET/PV treated with PEG and HU at 12 and 24 months were similar. PEG was associated with a higher rate of grade 3/4 toxicity. Each drug appeared equally capable of modifying the natural history of high risk ET/PV based upon their effects on spleen size, karyotypic abnormalities, histopathological parameters and the low incidence of thrombotic complications and disease evolution in both arms. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Novartis: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Rambaldi:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Harrison:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mead:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Elstar: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy; Evotek: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy. Kessler:Genentech: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biomarin: Research Funding; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DSMB: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dimension Advisory boards: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kremyanskaya:Incyte: Research Funding. Rampal:Stemline: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Mesa:CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. Dueck:Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment. Hoffman:Incyte: Research Funding; Formation Biologics: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Summer Road: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) suffer from disease related events linked to risk of vascular events, splenomegaly, progression to myelofibrosis/acute leukemia, and disease related symptoms arising from both elevated cytokines and issues of vascular flow. Impact of front line therapy on ET/PV symptoms has not been reported in a systematic fashion. Methods: MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) enrolled cytoreductive therapy naïve (hydroxyurea [HU] <3 mo) pts with high risk ET or PV within 3 years of diagnosis. Pts were randomized (1:1, stratified by ET vs PV) to either response adjusted pegylated interferon alpha 2a (PEG) or HU. MPN symptoms, treatment toxicities, and quality of life (QoL) were measured by the MPN-SAF and EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 mo. PEG related toxicities were assessed with 5 questions on PEG arm only. European Leukemia Net (ELN) complete hematological responses (CHR) at 12 mo were determined by central blinded review. Individual time point and longitudinal group comparisons were based on mixed models adjusting for age. T-tests were used to compare change scores at 12 mo between pts with and without CHR. Results: Patients: MPD-RC 112 enrolled 168 pts from 9/2011 to 7/2016, with 75 pts included in the interim analysis. 73 (97%; HU 37, 95%; PEG 36, 100%) completed surveys at baseline of which 66 (90%; HU 30, 81%; PEG 36, 100%) completed at least 1 survey during treatment. Median age was 60 (range 19-84) with 32 (44%) females; 30 (41%) / 43 (59%) with ET / PV; 19 (26%) had a history of thrombosis; and 16 (22%) had palpable spleen. Baseline characteristics where balanced between arms with the exception of age (median age: HU 66, PEG 54; p<0.001). Baseline Symptom Burden/QoL: Mean MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS, scale 0 [absent]-100 [worst imaginable]) was 15.4 (SD 12.5; range 0-52.2) with means of 12.6 (SD 11.7) / 17.3 (SD 12.7) for ET / PV which were somewhat better than reported means of a previous cohort receiving any line of treatment (ET mean 18.7, SD 15.3; PV mean 21.8, SD 16.3; Emanuel RM, JCO 2012). Symptoms (scale 0 [absent]-10 [worst imaginable]) with the highest prevalence (score >0) included fatigue (65/73, 89%) and insomnia (47/73, 64%). The symptom with the lowest prevalence was fever (8/72, 11%). Mean QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL (GHS/QoL) was 73.3 (SD 19.1) which is comparable to a general healthy population (mean 71.2, SD 22.4) and better than a general cancer population (mean 61.3, SD 24.2; QLQ-C30 Reference Manual 2008). TSS, symptoms, and QoL did not differ between arms. Impact of Therapy on Symptom Burden/QoL: On HU, pts initially experienced worsening of TSS, fatigue, early satiety, itching, bone pain, and fever (all p<0.05) with some symptoms returning to baseline after 6 mo (Table 1). On PEG, pts experienced improved abdominal pain and discomfort, but worsening of headache, cough, injection site irritation, blurry vision, and vision change (all p<0.05). Sad mood did not worsen on PEG, although this may be confounded by concurrent use of mood stabilizers. Concentration problems on PEG were significantly worse at 9 mo (p=0.04). Both arms experienced worsened QoL (MPN-SAF single item: HU p=0.009, PEG p=0.003). In comparing between arms, TSS significantly differed (p=0.009) with higher symptoms on HU vs PEG at 3 and 6 mo, but lower symptoms at 9 and 12 mo (Figure 1). Similar descriptive profiles were observed for most individual symptoms; however, the only symptom profiles which significantly differed between arms was early satiety (p=0.03). ELN Response and Symptom Burden/QoL: Among 62 pts with symptom and response data at 12 mo, CHR rate was 37% (23/62). Change in sad mood and sexuality were the only significant differences between pts with and without CHR regardless of arm though in the unanticipated direction (sad mood: mean change 1.5 vs -0.8, p<0.001; sexuality: mean change 2.33 vs 0.3, p=0.03). Conclusions: PEG was associated with an initial decrease in MPN symptom burden when compared to HU. However, with longer duration of therapy, this superiority dissipated. Patient-reported PEG toxicities worsened over time. On both arms, symptom worsening was observed in pts achieving an ELN CHR, possibly leading to the observed negative impact on mood and sexuality. Future research on the impact of PEG on disease progression and molecular features will be important to assess whether increased side effects with PEG are justified. Disclosures Mesa: CTI: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Harrison:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Baxaltra: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. McMullin:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Yacoub:Alexion: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mead:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kessler:Pfizer: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Research Funding; Grifols: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Biogen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy, Research Funding; LFB: Other: Member of DSMB. Ritchie:Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Arian: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Schlenk:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Promedior: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: DSMB , Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Clinical Trial Steereing Committee, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Cytoreductive therapy with hydroxyurea (HU) has been considered first line therapy for patients with high risk polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) since the results of the PVSG-08 trial demonstrated thrombotic risk reduction (Fruchtman SM et al 1997) for PV and PT1 for ET (Harrison CN et al 2005). Although HU is well tolerated by most patients and has been shown to reduce thrombotic risk in this setting, concern regarding the leukemogenic potential of this oral ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor balanced by the observation of molecular responses with interferon-α (IFN-α) led us to compare the clinical response and tolerability of pegIFN-α (PEG) and HU in a global, randomized, phase III trial. Methods : MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) enrolled patients with high risk (age >60 years, history of thrombosis, extreme thrombocytosis, symptomatic splenomegaly, uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors), newly diagnosed (<5 years), WHO defined ET/PV that were treatment naïve (HU <3 months) and randomized (1:1) to PEG or HU. The primary endpoint was complete hematologic response (CHR) rate by European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria between the arms after 12 months of therapy. A planned interim analysis based on intent-to-treat with testing boundaries for efficacy and futility was conducted after 75 patients were on study for 12 months. Response assessment by ELN criteria were conducted by blinded review by 4 investigators (JM, RAM, AY, RH). Intent-to-treat analysis was conducted for efficacy endpoints (HU n=39; PEG n=36). Safety analysis included all patients who received treatment (HU n=36; PEG n=36). Results: Patients: The MPD-RC 112 trial involved 24 centers in 6 countries; enrollment began 09/2011 and concluded 7/2016 prior to full accrual due to study drug availability with 168 patients enrolled (Table 1 for 75 patients in the interim analysis). There was no imbalance between arms with respect to history of thrombosis, erythromelalgia, diabetes, hypertension, but age was significantly older on HU. This remained true when analyzing by ET/PV disease strata with the exception of diabetes which was slightly imbalanced within the PV cohort (HU 5/23, 22%; PEG 0/21, 0%; p<0.05). Response: CHR and PHR were observed in 13 (33%) and 14 (36%) patients for an overall response rate (ORR) of 69% (27/39) for HU, and 10 (28%) and 19 (53%) for an ORR of 81% (29/36) for PEG (CHR comparison p=0.60 based on z-test which did not cross either testing boundary). 10 patients randomized to HU were not evaluable for 12-month response due to never initiating treatment (n=3) or early study discontinuation for AEs (n=1), patient withdrawal (n=5), or treatment non-compliance (n=1). 3 patients were not evaluable for response on PEG due to early study discontinuation for AEs (n=1), physician decision (n=1), or patient withdrawal (n=1). Excluding patients who never initiated treatment did not impact the primary endpoint comparison (HU 13/36, 36%; PEG 10/36, 28%; p=0.45). For ET, CHR and PHR were observed in 7 (44%) and 4 (25%) patient on HU, and 6 (40%) and 6 (40%) for PEG (CHR comparison p=0.83). For PV, CHR and PHR were observed in 6 (26%) and 10 (44%) patients on HU, and 4 (19%) and 13 (62%) for PEG (CHR comparison p=0.58). Normalization of spleen by palpation at 12 months was seen in 2/7 (29%) and 5/7 (71%) of the HU and PEG treated patients with palpable spleen at baseline, respectively. Among 38 PV patients, rate of phlebotomy use at 12 months was 0/18 (0%) vs 5/20 (20%) on HU and PEG (p=0.02). From baseline to best score through 12 months, 9/28 (32%) and 12/34 (35%) patients with data on HU and PEG, respectively, had a ≥50% reduction in MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (p=0.79). Toxicity: No Grade 4 AEs occurred in either treatment arm. Overall, Grade 3 AEs occurred in 5/36 (14%) HU patients and 16/36 (44%) PEG patients (Grade 3 hematologic: 4/36 [11%] HU vs 8/36 [22%] PEG; Grade 3 non-hematologic: 5/36 [14%] HU vs 16/36 [44%] PEG). See Table 2 for Grade 3 AEs regardless of attribution occurring in >10% of patients in either arm. Conclusions: This interim analysis does not show a clear difference in primary endpoint of CHR between HU and PEG. A comparative analysis of the quality of life and symptom burden will provide further insight into the tolerability of these agents (Mesa et al ASH 2016). The final results of this pivotal trial will provide necessary data required to firmly establish the optimal first line therapy for patients with high risk ET/PV. Disclosures Mascarenhas: CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: DSMB , Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Clinical Trial Steereing Committee, Research Funding. Mesa:Celgene: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Yacoub:Alexion: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Harrison:Baxaltra: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. McMullin:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mead:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kessler:Incyte: Honoraria. Ritchie:Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. Schlenk:Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The Philadelphia chromosome negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) includePolycythemia Vera (PV), Essential Thrombocythemia (ET) and Primary Myelofibrosis (PMF). These stem cell disorders carry a propensity to evolve into acute myeloid leukemia (MPN-blast phase [BP] or post-MPN AML) with a dismal prognosis not meaningfully improved by conventional anti-leukemia therapy. Thus, MPN-BP is an urgent unmet clinical need. Responses in patients with MPN-BP to hypomethylating agents and single agent ruxolitinib have been reported. More recently, combination of ruxolitnib and decitabine has demonstrated synergistic activity in vitro in cells derived from patients with MPN-BP and from a murine model of MPN-BP (Rampal et al PNAS 2014). These observations led us to explore the safety of combined decitabine and dose escalation of ruxolitinib in MPN-BP. Objective: To establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of ruxolitinib in combination with a fixed dose of decitabine (DEC-RUX). Methods: We conducted an open label Phase I trial in patients with MPN acceleration phase (AP) as defined by 10%-19% blasts in the peripheral blood or bone marrow or a diagnosis of MPN-BP as defined by ≥ 20% blasts in the blood or bone marrow, following a previous diagnosis of ET, PV or PMF. Patients were enrolled in a standard 3+3 phase I design with an MTD defined as a dose <33% DLT. Ruxolitinib was administered at doses of 10mg, 15mg, 25mg, or 50mg every 12 hours in combination with concurrent decitabine at a dose of 20mg/m2 daily intravenously over 5 days and repeated every 28 days. Adverse events were assessed using the NCI CTCAE v. 4.0. DLTs were defined as Grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicity events not clearly related to disease and grade 4 hematologic events with a bone marrow cellularity of ≤5% and no evidence of leukemia. Response assessment was carried out every cycle using modified Cheson criteria: CR required 0% peripheral blood blasts, WBC ≥4x109/L, hemoglobin ≥10g/L, and platelets ≥100x109/L; CRi required 0% peripheral blood blasts with incomplete count recovery; and PR required ≥50% decrease in peripheral blood blasts regardless of blood counts. Results: A total of 21 patients were accrued to study (Table 1). The median age was 63 years (range 48-88). 52% carried a diagnosis of MPN-AP, and 48% carried a diagnosis of MPN-BP. 29% of patients and 24% of patients had prior exposure to ruxolitinb and decitabine, respectively. The median number of cycles received varied from 10.5 cycles in the 10mg BID cohort to 2 and 2.5 cycles in the 25mg BID and 50mg BID cohorts, respectively (Table 2). The most common Grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs observed were due to infection in all dosing cohorts. In terms of hematologic toxicity, treatment emergent Grade 3/4 anemia was observed in 1 patient in each of the 10mg BID, 15mg BID, and 50mg BID cohorts. Grade 3/4 leukopenia was observed in only 1 patient at the 50mg BID cohort, and Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was observed in 2 patients in the 10mg BID cohort and 1 patient in the 15mg BID cohort. DLT rate was below 33% for all dose levels so the MTD was not reached. The most common reason for ending study treatment was toxicity/adverse events (33%) followed by disease progression (22%). 9 patients died during study or follow-up. Of those, 5 (56%, 2 in 10mg BID cohort, 1 in 15mg BID cohort, 2 in 50mg BID cohort) died of infection, 3 (33%, 1 in each of 10mg, 25mg, and 50mg BID cohorts) of progressive disease, and 1 (11%, 25mg BID cohort) of hemorrhage. The median overall survival for patients on study was 10.4 months (95% CI 3.3 mo - not reached). CR/CRi as best response was observed in 7/21 patients (33%, 95% CI 15-57%; 2 CR, 5 CRi; Table 2). Conclusions: DEC-RUX combination therapy was safely administered to patients with MPN-AP/BP and an MTD was not reached. Based on pre-clinical data, observed safety profile, duration of treatment, and clinical responses in this phase I trial, the Recommended Phase II Dose of RUX was selected as 25mg BID for an induction cycle followed by 10mg BID in all ensuing cycles. Molecular and bone marrow pathology responses will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Promedior: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: DSMB , Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Clinical Trial Steereing Committee, Research Funding. Hexner:Blueprint medicines: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding. Abboud:Alexion: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Baxalta: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Gerson and Lehman Group: Consultancy; Cardinal: Honoraria. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy; Qiagen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa:Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding.

Abstract Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), including polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and primary myelofibrosis, have a propensity to evolve into accelerated and blast-phase disease (MPN-AP/BP), carrying a dismal prognosis. Conventional antileukemia therapy has limited efficacy in this setting. Thus, MPN-AP/BP is an urgent unmet clinical need. Modest responses to hypomethylating agents and single-agent ruxolitinib have been reported. More recently, combination of ruxolitinib and decitabine has demonstrated synergistic in vitro activity in human and murine systems. These observations led us to conduct a phase 1 study to explore the safety of combined decitabine and dose-escalated ruxolitinib in patients with MPN-AP/BP. A total of 21 patients were accrued to this multicenter study. Ruxolitinib was administered at doses of 10, 15, 25, or 50 mg twice daily in combination with decitabine (20 mg/m2 per day for 5 days) in 28-day cycles. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The most common reasons for study discontinuation were toxicity/adverse events (37%) and disease progression (21%). Fourteen patients died during study treatment period or follow-up. The median overall survival for patients on study was 7.9 months (95% confidence interval, 4.1-not reached). Among evaluable patients, the overall response rate by protocol-defined criteria (complete remission with incomplete count recovery + partial remission) was 9/17 (53%) and by intention-to-treat analysis was 9/21 (42.9%). The combination of decitabine and ruxolitinib was generally well tolerated by patients with MPN-AP/BP and demonstrates potentially promising clinical activity. A phase 2 trial evaluating the efficacy of this combination regimen is ongoing within the Myeloproliferative Disorder Research Consortium.