Weinberg, Rona Singer

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 The inhibitory effects exerted by transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) on adult erythropoiesis has been well established. Canonical SMAD-depedent TGF-β signaling inhibits erythroid differentiation at multiple levels: it induces hematopoietic stem cells into quiescence (Chabanon et at Stem Cells. 2008;26:3150), it elicits a Smad5-dependent inhibition of progenitor cell proliferation (Bruno et al, Blood 1998; 91:1971) by increasing the length of G1 through reduction of G1 cyclin and cyclin-dependent protein kinases (Jacobsen et al, Blood 1995; 86:2957; Geng and Weinberg, PNAS 1993; 90:10315) and triggers Smad4-signaling accelerating terminal erythroid maturation (Zermati et al, Exp hematol 2000; 28:885; Choi et al MCB 2005;271:23). TGF-β is expressed by almost every cell type, but is produced in the greatest amount by megakaryocytes (Assonian et al, JBC 1983;258:7155; Massague, Cell 2008;134, 215). TGF-β has been implicated in the pathogenesis of primary myelofibrosis (PMF) by Schmitt et al (Blood. 2000;96:1342). Plasma, bone marrow and spleen washes of PMF patients, as well as those from murine PMF models, contain 2 fold-greater levels of total and bioactive TGF-β than those from normal controls (Zingariello et al, Blood 2013;121:3345). In addition, megakaryocytes from PMFpatients contain greater amounts of TGF-β than those from other MPNs such as polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (Ciurea et al, Blood 2007;110:986). Published data, however, also suggest that malignant MPN cells are insensitive to TGF-β. Microarray analyses of PMF bone marrow and spleen cells revealed TGF-β signaling abnormalities which predict activation of non-canonical p38/ERK-dependent rather than canonical SMAD-dependent signaling (Ciaffoni et al, BCMD 2015;54:234). In addition, by phosphoproteomic profiling of PV erythroblasts (Erys) expanded in vitro express lower levels of pSmad2 as compared to Erys from healthy controls (Hricik et al. AJH 2013;88:723). The hypothesis that malignant MPN cells are insensitive to TGF-β was tested here by evaluating the effect of SB431542 [1,3,10 and 26µM], a small molecule inhibitor of TGF-β receptor 1, on ex vivo erythropoiesis in cultures generated by peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients with JAK2 V617+-PV (n=2) and JAK2 V617F+ or CALR pQ365f+-PMF. Identical experiments were performed with Erys generated from adult peripheral blood (AB, n=3) and cord blood (CB, n=2) of healthy controls. All cultures were stimulated with SCF, IL-3 and EPO with and without dexamethasone (Dex). In cultures of JAK2 V617F+ -PV, SB431542 increased by 2-fold the numbers of progenitor cells observed by day 6, but had no effect on that of Erys observed by day 12-17 [fold increase (FI) ~4 fold in all cases]. Moreover, neither the number of progenitor cells nor that of Erys were affected by SB431542 treatment in cultures generated from JAK2 V617F+ (n=1) and CALR pQ365fs+ -PMF (n=1) patients (Fig. 1). This lack of effects was observed in cultures with and without Dex. By contrast, as expected, in cultures of AB, SB431542 significantly increased by 2.5-fold the number of progenitor cells observed by day 6 and that of Erys observed by day 14-17 (Fig. 1). This increase was associated with greater retention of an immature erythroid phenotype (CD36+ CD235a+ cells 16% vs 3%) and an increased proliferative index (>3 Erys in metaphases per field vs 0). This was observed up to day 17 in cultures both with and without Dex. The effects of SB431542 in cultures of CB were, however, affected by the presence of Dex. In cultures without Dex, SB431542 increased by 2-fold the number of progenitor cells by day 6 but had no effect on that of Erys by day 12-17 (FI=10-15 and CD36+CD235a+ cells >60%). In the presence of Dex, SB431542 did not affect the number of progenitor cells at day 6 but reduced that of Erys by 3-fold on day 12-17. These results suggest that in the case of CB, TGF-β promotes erythroid maturation in synergy with Dex. In conclusion, SB431542 promoted proliferation and maturation of normal adult progenitor cells but had no effect on PMF progenitor cells suggesting that treatments with TGF-β receptor 1 inhibitors may reactivate normal hematopoiesis in PMF patients by providing a proliferative advantage to the resident non-diseased hematopoietic stem cells over the malignant clone. This therapeutic approach will be explored in a MPD-RC, multi-center, phase II trial in patients with PMF. Disclosures Hoffman: Geron: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; All Cells, LLC: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Promedior: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Roche: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Kalobios: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: The impact of genomic alterations, such as mutations in ASXL1, on the risk of disease progression and leukemic transformation in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) is well established. Further, emerging data suggests that the number and type of mutations may impact response to therapies such as ruxolitinib or imetelstat. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT) remains the only potentially curative treatment for MF patients. However, the impact of somatic mutations on overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) is poorly understood. Using next-generation sequencing of pre-transplant blood and bone marrow samples from a well clinically-annotated cohort of MF patients who underwent allo-HSCT, we sought to determine the impact of mutational burden on outcomes. Methods: A multicenter retrospective analysis of a cohort of 84 patients was carried out. This included 52 patients treated on the MPD-RC 101 prospective study (NCT00572897), 18 patients treated at Prince Margaret Hospital, and 14 patients treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Patient and transplant characteristics are displayed in Table 1. DNA was extracted from pre-transplant bone marrow aspirate samples or peripheral blood samples. High-throughput sequencing of a panel of genes was performed. Average coverage of 829x (standard deviation of ±130) was obtained. Mutect was utilized to call single point variants (comparing our samples to a pool of normal samples) and PINDEL was used to call short insertions and deletions. We excluded all mutations present in at least one database of known non-somatic variants (DBSNP and 1000 genomes) and absent from COSMIC. Univariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier graphics were used to investigate the association of patient, transplant, and disease characteristics with OS and RFS. Results: JAK2V617F was the most frequent mutation detected in 41(48.8%) patients (Table 2). Eighteen patients (21.4%) had triple negative disease (negative for JAK2, MPL, and CALR mutations). Univariate analysis included the following: patient characteristics (age, gender), transplant characteristics (related vs. unrelated donor, matched vs. mismatched donor and myeloablative vs. reduced intensity conditioning) and disease characteristics (DIPSS and presence of mutations). Decreased OS was associated with unrelated donor status (HR 2.09, 95% CI: 1.03-4.23, p=0.04), reduced intensity conditioning (HR 4.21, 95% CI: 1.01-17.59, p=0.049), triple negative disease (HR 2.09, 95% CI: 1.02-4.30, p=0.04), and presence of U2AF1 (HR 2.53, 95% CI: 1.10-5.81, p=0.03) or SUZ12 mutations (HR 3.92, 95% CI: 1.19-12.21, p=0.02). Decreased RFS was associated with unrelated donor status (HR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.16-4.45, p=0.02), and the presence of SUZ12 mutation (HR 6.97, 95% CI: 2.37-20.49, p<0.001). A descriptive decrease in RFS in patients with U2AF1 (HR 2.15, 95% CI: 0.94-4.88, p=0.07) was observed but did not reach statistical significance. Importantly, mutations previously reported to be associated with reduced OS and RFS in the non-transplant setting, such as ASXL1, EZH2, IDH1/2, and SRSF2, were not associated with poorer outcomes in this analysis in transplanted patients. In an exploratory multivariate analysis including donor type (related vs. unrelated) and presence of U2AF1 and SUZ12 mutations, there was a significantly reduced OS and RFS in patients who harbor these mutations regardless of donor type (OS: HR 5.30, 95% CI: 2.08-13.47, p<0.001; RFS: HR 5.49, 95% CI: 2.27-13.30, p<0.001). In patients without the above mutations, having an unrelated donor was associated with worse OS (HR 2.55, 95% CI: 1.09-5.96, p=0.03) and RFS (HR 2.61, 95% CI: 1.17-5.83, p=0.02, Figure 1). Conclusions: Our analysis demonstrates that mutations previously associated with poor prognosis in MF, such as ASXL1, do not appear to confer a worsened prognosis in patients undergoing allo-HSCT, suggesting transplant may be able to overcome the impact of these mutations. However, mutations in SUZ12 and U2AF1 are associated with reduced OS in univariate and multivariate analysis (together with donor type). Further studies with larger cohorts of patients are indicated to validate these findings, and to elucidate the impact of these mutations on disease biology. Disclosures Rampal: Incye and CTI: Consultancy. Mascarenhas:Janssen: Research Funding; CTi Biopharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Merk: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Mesa:Galena: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Gupta:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, 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.