Barbui, Tiziano

Abstract Background The recent association of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) with COVID-19 vaccinations (JAMA; 2021; 325, N Engl J Med 2021; 384) motivated the current review of CVT and MPN. Our objectives were, i) provide an estimation of the incidence of CVT in the context of MPN, followed by a description of clinical phenotype and therapeutic strategies, ii) determine long term outlook in terms of recurrent thromboses, hemorrhage, and survival, iii) identify salient features which distinguish MPN associated from COVID vaccine- related CVT. Methods 74 consecutive MPN patients with CVT that underwent evaluation at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN, USA (n=36), Catholic University, Rome, Italy, (n=23), and University of Florence, Italy (n=15) between 1991 and 2021 were included. The cohort from a previously published multi-center study that included 42 MPN cases with CVT, which were not included in the current study, was used for comparison of observations. Diagnosis of CVT was established with computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging with venography. Results Patient characteristics at time of CVT Among 74 patients with CVT and MPN (median age 44 years, range 15-85; 61% females); disease-specific frequencies were 1.3% (39/2,893), 1.2% (21/1,811) and 0.2% (3/1,888) for essential thrombocythemia (ET), polycythemia vera (PV) and primary myelofibrosis (PMF), respectively. CVT occurred prior to (n=20, 27%, median time to MPN diagnosis 16.5 months), at (n=32, 44%) or after (n=21, 29%, median time to CVT 26 months) MPN diagnosis. 72% of patients presented with headaches, 22% visual changes, 12% nausea/vomiting, 8% neurological deficits, and 6% seizures. Transverse (51%), sagittal (43%) and sigmoid (35%) sinuses were involved with central nervous system hemorrhage in 10 (14%) patients. MPN phenotype included ET (n=39, 53%), PV (n=21, 28%), pre-fibrotic MF (n=6, 8%), MPN-unclassified (n=4, 5%), PMF (n=3, 4%) and post-PV MF (n=1, 1%). Driver mutation testing was performed in 65 patients: 91% harbored JAK2V617F, 3% CALR type 1, 2% MPL, 5% triple negative; moreover, JAK2V617F was mutated in 27/33 (82%) ET patients. An underlying thrombophilia was identified in 19 (31%) cases. No patient had thrombocytopenia. (Table 1). Notably, one patient received the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, five days prior to presenting with CVT, not associated with thrombosis in other sites, thrombocytopenia or platelet factor 4 antibodies. A history of thrombosis was documented in 10 (14%) patients with three splanchnic venous events. These observations were similar to those noted in our comparative group from a previously published report that included 42 cases; (ET (n=25, 60%), PV (n=11, 26%), PMF (n=5, 12%); median age 51 years, range 16-84; 55% females; 81% JAK2V617F mutated). Prior thrombosis occurred in 8(19%) patients with four splanchnic venous events. Treatment for CVT included systemic anticoagulation alone in 27 (36%) patients or in conjunction with aspirin (n=24, 32%), cytoreductive therapy (n=14, 19%), or both aspirin and cytoreduction (n=9, 12%). 5/21 (24%) patients with CVT post MPN diagnosis, were on anticoagulation at the time of CVT. Outcome following CVT At a median follow-up of 5.1 years (range; 0.1-28.6), recurrent CVT was documented in 3 (4%) patients; incidence rates for other arterial and venous thromboses and hemorrhage were 11% (2 per 100 patient-years), 9% (1.9 per 100 patient-years) and 14% (3 per 100 patient-years), respectively. 3 of 7 (43%) venous thromboses were splanchnic events. Antithrombotic therapy was ongoing in 53% and 80% of patients with thrombotic recurrences and hemorrhage, respectively. A higher incidence of venous thrombosis was noted in the aforementioned previously published cohort (12 (29%) vs 7 (9%), p=0.01); with 5/12 (42%) splanchnic events. Incidence rates for arterial thrombosis and major hemorrhage were similar. Fibrotic and leukemic transformation occurred in 5 (8%) and 1(1%) patient, respectively, with five (7%) deaths unrelated to CVT. Conclusions The current study highlights close association of CVT with JAK2V617F, younger age, and female gender. Clinical features distinguishing COVID vaccine-related from MPN-associated CVT include lower likelihood of concomitant non-CVT venous thromboses with the latter; moreover, the absence of thrombocytopenia resulted in a lower rate of intracerebral hemorrhage in MPN cases; as a result, MPN-CVT was not fatal. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Vannucchi: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

AbstractThe recent association of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) with COVID‐19 vaccinations prompted the current retrospective review of 74 cases of CVT (median age = 44 years, range 15–85; 61% females) associated with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), seen at the Mayo Clinic, Catholic University of Rome, and University of Florence, between 1991 and 2021. Disease‐specific frequencies were 1.3% (39/2893), 1.2% (21/1811) and 0.2% (3/1888) for essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera and primary myelofibrosis, respectively. Cerebral venous thrombosis occurred either prior to (n = 20, 27%), at (n = 32, 44%) or after (n = 22) MPN diagnosis. A total of 72% of patients presented with headaches. Transverse (51%), sagittal (43%) and sigmoid sinuses (35%) were involved with central nervous system hemorrhage noted in 10 (14%) patients. In all, 91% of tested patients harbored JAK2V617F. An underlying thrombophilic condition was identified in 19 (31%) cases and history of thrombosis in 10 (14%). Treatment for CVT included systemic anticoagulation alone (n = 27) or in conjunction with aspirin (n = 24), cytoreductive therapy (n = 14), or both (n = 9). At a median follow‐up of 5.1 years (range 0.1–28.6), recurrent CVT was documented in three (4%) patients while recurrent arterial and venous thromboses and major hemorrhage were recorded in 11%, 9% and 14%, respectively. Follow‐up neurological assessment revealed headaches (n = 9), vision loss (n = 1) and cognitive impairment (n = 1). The current study lends clarity to MPN‐associated CVT and highlights its close association with JAK2V617F, younger age and female gender. Clinical features that distinguish COVID vaccine‐related CVT from MPN‐associated CVT include, in the latter, lower likelihood of concurrent venous thromboses and intracerebral hemorrhage; as a result, MPN‐associated CVT was not fatal.

Background: Historical treatment guidelines for the myeloproliferative neoplasm, polycythemia vera (PV), have generally not recommended cytoreductive therapy for "low risk" PV (age <60 and no prior thrombo-hemorrhagic events (TH)) on the hypothesis that decreasing the risk of TH events is the only goal of therapy for PV. The MPN-QOL Study Group has previously reported on the presence of PV associated symptoms, sometime severe, in PV including "low risk" PV patients. Recently, data from the ongoing "Low PV" interventional trial of RoPEG Interferon (INF) vs. Phlebotomy alone suggests an advantage in symptom control and event free survival in "low risk" PV patients treated on the RoPEG INF cytoreductive arm (LBA EHA 2020). Given this latter trial might alter the approach to managing "low risk" PV patients we sought to assess the symptom burden (with or without cytoreductive treatments) in that population. Methods: MPN patient data was collected prospectively amongst an international cohort of PV patients including symptom burden, demographics, and disease features collected by IRB approved de-identified survey questionnaires (N=2,017, of which 698 had PV). We analyzed data from a subgroup consistent with "low risk PV" (age <60, no prior thrombo-hemorrhagic events). All participants completed the MPN-specific symptom burden questionnaire (MPN-SAF TSS [MPN-10]) and had no prior history of splenectomy. Surveyed symptoms on the MPN-10 included the patient's perceptions of common MPN-related symptoms and overall quality of life (QOL) on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale. Results: A total of 211 "low risk" PV patients were identified, of which 140 (66.4%) had received some form of cytoreductive therapy (hydroxyurea = 54%; pegylated interferon = 44%; and anagrelide = 2%), with those patients not on cytoreductive therapy being statistically significantly younger (M=48.2±8.74 years vs. M=50.6±7.41 years), having a shorter duration of an MPN diagnosis (M=4.6±4.82 years vs. M=6.7±6.00 years), and higher hemoglobin (M=16.9±3.26 vs. M=15.2±2.37), higher hematocrit (M=50.6±9.83 vs. M=45.5±7.10), higher leukocyte (M=10.8±4.25 vs. M=7.5±4.72), and higher platelet counts (M=508.1±317.19 vs. M=327.8±190.52) at the time of MPN symptom assessment (Table 1). The entire cohort was quite symptomatic with 87% (n=184/211) of patients endorsing fatigue, but overall the PV patients on cytoreduction were more symptomatic (mean MPN-10 of 24.7 (cytoreduction) vs 18.5 (no cytoreduction) p=0.01) with significantly higher levels of fatigue (p=0.04), bone pain (p=0.04), fever (p=0.001) and weight loss (p=0.04) in cytoreductive group (Table 2). Conclusions: "Low risk" PV patients are frequently symptomatic, and an unselected series from the MPN-QOL Study Group demonstrates significant symptomatic unmet needs in this population potentially supporting the need and potential benefit of cytoreductive therapy. "Low risk" PV patients (even before the impact of the Low PV Study is realized) also have frequently been receiving cytoreductive therapies, even though they have not been included in treatment guidelines, and typically have higher symptom burden despite lower counts, are older, and have longer duration of MPNs. Drivers of the decision to use cytoreductive therapy was not captured, but it is possible longer duration of disease, higher symptom burden, intolerance of phlebotomy might all be contributing factors. These results show there is both unmet need, and frequent heterogeneity amongst "low risk" PV patients, the final results of the Low PV Study are anticipated with great interest. Disclosures Mesa: Novartis: Consultancy; LaJolla Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Barbui:Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AOP: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction Essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV) patients suffer from various symptoms that worsen quality of life (QOL), yet serial data on symptom changes resulting from therapy are sparse in the literature. Patient questionnaires from 2 large multicenter trials (MPN-RC 111, 112) were used to assess change in symptom burden and QOL over 12 months and impact of baseline symptom burden on subsequent change in ET / PV patients on hydroxyurea (HU) or pegylated interferon alfa-2a (PEG). Methods Trials MPN-RC 111 was a single-arm, open-label, phase II trial evaluating response to PEG in high-risk ET / PV patients with HU resistance/intolerance or splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT; NCT01259817). MPN-RC 112 was a randomized, open-label, phase III trial comparing response to PEG versus HU in cytoreductive therapy naïve high-risk ET / PV patients diagnosed < 5 years ago (NCT01258856). Measures Patients reported disease-related symptoms via the validated Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF), QOL via the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Core QOL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), and (if applicable) PEG-related symptoms (flu-like symptoms, injection site irritation, blurry vision, vision change, flushing) at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Analysis Mixed models assessed mean changes from baseline in the MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS), MPN-SAF items, QOL, and PEG-related symptoms in MPN-RC 111, 112 PEG, and 112 HU patients. Mixed models also assessed the impact of baseline symptom burden (high [TSS ≥ 20] versus low) on subsequent change in PEG (MPN-RC 111 and 112) and HU patients. Results Patients Of the 135 enrolled MPN-RC 111 patients, 20 with SVT and 1 with no questionnaires were excluded. Of the remaining 114, 64 (56%) / 50 (44%) had ET / PV. Patients were 51% / 48% female. Median age was 65 / 64 years, and median time since diagnosis was 38 / 55 months. 31% / 22% had prior thrombosis, and 19% / 56% had splenomegaly. Of the 168 enrolled MPN-RC 112 patients (82 PEG, 86 HU), 2 with no questionnaires were excluded. Of the remaining 166, 79 (48%) / 87 (52%) had ET / PV. Patients were 50% / 33% female. Median age was 60 / 62 years, and median time since diagnosis was 3 / 3 months. 25% / 29% had prior thrombosis, and 11% / 37% had splenomegaly. Symptoms Questionnaire completion rates ranged from 90 - 99%, 87 - 100%, and 75 - 96% for on-treatment MPN-RC 111, 112 PEG, and 112 HU patients. At baseline, TSS (0 [absent] - 100 [worst imaginable]) and QOL (0 [very poor] - 100 [excellent]) means (SDs) were 19.5 (18.4) and 71.6 (20.1) for MPN-RC 111, 17.0 (13.6) and 67.9 (24.3) for MPN-RC 112 PEG, and 14.6 (11.4) and 73.8 (18.8) for MPN-RC 112 HU patients. On average, MPN-RC 111 patients had significant improvement of TSS, fatigue, abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort, dizziness, numbness, night sweats, and fever; MPN-RC 112 PEG patients had significant worsening of fever; and MPN-RC 112 HU patients had significant worsening of inactivity (no mean changes indicating improvement were observed). PEG patients had significant worsening of PEG-related symptoms. The greatest improvements occurred in the 46 (40%), 27 (33%), and 23 (28%) MPN-RC 111, 112 PEG, and 112 HU patients with high baseline symptom burden. On average, PEG patients with high baseline symptom burden had significant improvement of TSS, fatigue, early satiety, abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort, inactivity, headache, concentration, dizziness, numbness, insomnia, cough, night sweats, itching, bone pain, fever, weight loss, and QOL, while those with low baseline symptom burden had significant worsening of TSS, early satiety, headache, itching, and bone pain. On average, HU patients with high baseline symptom burden had significant improvement of TSS, early satiety, abdominal discomfort, headache, dizziness, numbness, insomnia, itching, and weight loss, while those with low baseline symptom burden had significant worsening of TSS, early satiety, abdominal discomfort, inactivity, concentration, and sexual desire/function (Figures 1 and 2). Conclusions Although no statistical comparisons were made across trials, overall improvements were seen in MPN-RC 111 but not 112. Patients with high baseline symptom burden experienced the greatest improvements in symptom burden and QOL during treatment with PEG or HU, which may explain the improvements seen in the more advanced patients in MPN-RC 111 compared to 112. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Celgene, Prelude, Galecto, Promedior, Geron, Constellation, and Incyte: Consultancy; Incyte, Kartos, Roche, Promedior, Merck, Merus, Arog, CTI Biopharma, Janssen, and PharmaEssentia: Other: Research funding (institution). Yacoub:Dynavax: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Cara Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in private company; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Hoffman:Protagonist: Consultancy; Forbius: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dompe: Research Funding. Silver:PharmaEssentia: Speakers Bureau. Mesa:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; LaJolla Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy.

Abstract Disease overview Polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) are myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) respectively characterized by clonal erythrocytosis and thrombocytosis; other disease features include leukocytosis, splenomegaly, thrombosis, bleeding, microcirculatory symptoms, pruritus and risk of leukemic or fibrotic transformation. Diagnosis Bone marrow morphology remains the cornerstone of diagnosis. In addition, the presence of JAK2 mutation is expected in PV while approximately 90% of patients with ET express mutually exclusive JAK2 , CALR or MPL mutations (so called driver mutations). In ET, it is most important to exclude the possibility of prefibrotic myelofibrosis. Survival Median survivals are approximately 15 years for PV and 18 years for ET; the corresponding values for patients age 40 or younger were 37 and 35 years. Certain mutations (mostly spliceosome) and abnormal karyotype might compromise survival in PV and ET. Life‐expectancy in ET is inferior to the control population. Driver mutations have not been shown to affect survival in ET but risk of thrombosis is higher in JAK2 mutated cases. Leukemic transformation rates at 10 years are estimated at <1% for ET and 3% for PV. Thrombosis risk In PV, two risk categories are considered: high (age > 60 years or thrombosis history present) and low (absence of both risk factors). In ET, four risk categories are considered: very low (age ≤ 60 years, no thrombosis history, JAK2 wild‐type), low (same as very low but JAK2 mutation present), intermediate (age > 60 years, no thrombosis history, JAK2 wild‐type) and high (thrombosis history present or age > 60 years with JAK2 mutation). Risk‐adapted therapy The main goal of therapy in both PV and ET is to prevent thrombohemorrhagic complications. All patients with PV require phlebotomy to keep hematocrit below 45% and once‐daily or twice‐daily aspirin (81 mg), in the absence of contraindications. Very low risk ET might not require therapy while aspirin therapy is advised for low risk disease. Cytoreductive therapy is recommended for high‐risk ET and PV, but it is not mandatory for intermediate‐risk ET. First‐line drug of choice for cytoreductive therapy, in both ET and PV, is hydroxyurea and second‐line drugs of choice are interferon‐α and busulfan. We do not recommend treatment with ruxolutinib in PV, unless in the presence of severe and protracted pruritus or marked splenomegaly that is not responding to the aforementioned drugs. New treatment directions Controlled studies are needed to confirm the clinical outcome value of twice‐daily vs once‐daily aspirin dosing and the therapeutic role of pegylated interferons and direct oral anticoagulants.

Abstract Philadelphia-negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms (MPN), including Polycythemia Vera (PV), Essential Thrombocythemia (ET), Myelofibrosis (Primary [PMF] and secondary to PV and ET [PPV-, PET-MF] and unclassified MPN (U-MPN), are associated with an increased risk of venous thrombosis in unusual sites, such as splanchnic vessels (SVT). SVT can lead to complications such as portal hypertension, esophageal and gastric varices, ascites,hepatic failure and biliopathy. According to a meta-analysis MPN is the underlying cause of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in 31.5% and Budd Chiari syndrome (BCS) in 40.9% of cases (Smalberg, 2012); a more in-depth analysis of clinical characteristics and evolution of MPN-associated SVT has been hampered by heterogeneity of cohorts comprising small number of cases. We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in patients (pts) with SVT associated with WHO2008-diagnosed MPN, with the aim to describe patient characteristics, disease course and prognostic factors with potential implications for clinical practice. Data were collected from 16 international hematologic centers in the framework of the Italian AGIMM and the IWG-MRT groups. We collected 519 cases of pts with PVT, splenic or mesenteric vein thrombosis (75.1%) and BCS (24.9%) associated with MPN. We used as comparator a cohort of 1686 controls (Ctr) represented by MPN without (w/o) SVT: 741 ET (43.9%), 684 PV (39.7%), 261 PMF (15.5%). Frequency of MPN associated with SVT was 37.8% ET (n=196), 36.8% PV (n=191), 15.4% MF (n=80), 10% U-MPN (n=52). Median follow-up was 89.9 months (mo) (range 0.5-430). For SVT vs Ctr group females were 54.5% vs 44.4% in PV (P=0.001), 68.4 vs 63.5% (p=0.13) in ET, 63.7% vs 29.1% in PMF (p<0.0001); median age at MPN diagnosis (dg) was 43.5 yr (range 12-90) vs 60.6 yr (range 12-93) (p<0.0001). Age at SVT dg was 44 yr (range 15-85). In 240 cases (46.7%) MPN and SVT dg were coincident, in 121 (23.6%) SVT occurred before MPN dg (median 26 mo, range 4-307) and in 153 (29.8%) during MPN follow up (median 68 mo, range 4-362). JAK2V617F mutation was found in 94% PV vs 94% in Ctr, 84% vs 61% ET (p<0.0001), 88.1% vs 68% PMF (p=0.006) and in 93% U-MPN. Erythropoietin-independent colonies (EEC) were evaluated in 111 SVT pts and found in 80 (72%), accounting for 38/48 PV (79%), 31/44 ET (70.5%), 9/12 PMF (75%) and 2/7 U-MPN (28.6%). At dg, SVT PV pts had lower hemoglobin levels than Ctr: median was 17.4 g/dL vs 18.5 g/dL (p<0.0001) in male, 16.9 g/dL vs 17.7 g/dL (p=0.0006) in female. A co-existing thrombophilic status was found in 38.5% SVT vs 11.8% of Ctr (p<0.0001). Recurrent SVT occurred in 12.2% of pts with a rate of 1.6% person/year (CI 1.2-2.1); risk of venous thrombosis other than SVT was increased in SVT group vs Ctr (p=0.02), with no difference for arterial thrombosis. Hemorrhage was more frequent in SVT group (32%) vs Ctr (7.2%)(p<0.0001), mainly related to esophageal varices, which were present in 66.9% of SVT pts. There was no difference in evolution to MF and acute leukemia (AL) for PV and ET pts with and w/o SVT, while risk of AL was lower in MF with SVT (p<0.00001). Overall survival was shorter in ET pts with SVT vs Ctr (p<0.0001). In PMF survival was better in SVT group (p<0.00001) and was associated with a higher proportion of SVT pts in lowest risk categories: IPSS low 65%, intermediate-1 20%, intermediate-2 10% and high 5% compared with 15%, 34%, 25% and 26% in Ctr group. At last FU, 79/519 pts (15.2%) had died; causes of death were evolution to AL (15.4%), other cancers (13.8%), disease progression without AL (10.8%), SVT (10.8%), hepatic failure and venous thrombosis other than SVT (7.7% each), heart failure and arterial thrombosis (6.2% each), hemorrhage (5.5%), renal failure and infection (4.6% each). Therapy after SVT included anticoagulation in 77%, antiaggregant in 21.2% and combination in 1.8%; 70% received cytotoxic drugs; 12.4% were treated with transjugular porto-systemic shunt. Beta blocker therapy was used in 48.5% of pts and correlated with improved survival (p=0.041) MPN associated with SVT correlated with younger age and female sex and might antedate the clinical phenotype in a quarter of the patients. MPN-associated SVT equally affected PV and ET, was more likely to occur in the presence of JAK2V617F or underlying thrombophilia and predicted recurrent venous but not arterial thrombosis. The apparent association of SVT with better or worse prognosis in PMF and ET, respectively, requires further investigation. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications are commonly encountered in uncontrolled essential thrombocythemia (ET). Both anagrelide and hydroxyurea (HU) have proven efficacious in cytoreduction as well as reducing these events and remain first line therapy for most high-risk ET patients. Independent of their role in risk-reduction, little is known about how these therapies impact patient symptomatology or quality of life. In this study, we compared the clinical and symptomatic profiles of ET patients receiving HU or anagrelide against patients with no previous experience with these agents. Methods: Data was assessed from a prospectively collected international database of ET patients in which demographics, disease features, and ET symptoms utilizing the myeloproliferative neoplasm symptom assessment form (MPN-SAF; Scherber et al, 2011). The MPN-SAF includes the patient's perceptions of common MPN-related symptoms and overall quality of life (QOL) on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale. Total symptom score (TSS) was computed based on symptom items using the published scoring algorithm on a 0 (all reported symptoms absent) to 100 (all reported symptoms worst imaginable) scale. ET risk scores were calculated using the IPSET scoring algorithm (Passamonti 2012). Thrombocytopenia was defined as a platelet count <100 x 10(9)/L, anemia was defined as hemoglobin<10 g/dL and leukopenia was defined as a white blood cell count <4.0 x 10(9)/L. Associations between the MPN-SAF individual symptoms were investigated using chi-square test for categorical data and ANOVA F-test for continuous variables. Results Hydroxyurea vs. HU Naive A total of 402 ET patients with active HU use were compared to 392 ET patients with no history of HU use. Patients using HU were older (63.5 years vs. 52.3 years, p<0.001) and had a greater concentration of both high risk (24.9% vs. 11.4%, p=0.001) and intermediate risk (53.9% vs 38.4%, p<0.001) patients. They also had a higher rate of prior thrombosis (29.8% vs 11.3%, p<0.001) and leukopenia (10.1% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001). No differences were noted between gender, a history of prior hemorrhage, red blood cell transfusion requirements, or the presence of anemia/thrombocytopenia. In comparing symptom profiles, no significant differences were noted between TSS or individual symptoms with the exception of slightly more severe cough in HU patients (1.5 vs. 1.1, p=0.02, Figure 1). Anagrelide vs. Anagrelide Naive A total of 49 ET patients with active anagrelide use were compared to 794 ET patients with no history of anagrelide use. Patients using anagrelide had a longer mean disease duration (8.1 years vs. 5.8 years) and were more anemic (9.1% vs. 1.2%, p<0.001). No differences were noted between age, gender, risk scores, the presence of leukopenia/thrombocytopenia, a history of prior thrombosis or hemorrhage complications or red blood cell transfusion requirements. Additionally, there were no significant differences between TSS or individual symptom items (Figure 1). HU vs. Anagrelide A total of 402 patients currently using HU were compared to 39 patients currently using anagrelide. Overall, HU users were slightly older (63.5 years vs. 55.1 years, p<0.001) with a greater population of patients meeting high risk criteria (24.9% vs. 2.8%, p=0.002) and having a history of prior thrombosis (29.8% vs. 12.8%, p=0.02). Patients receiving anagrelide had a slightly longer disease duration (8.2 years vs. 6.0 years, p=0.0446). In comparing symptom profiles, no differences were noted in TSS or individual symptom items between cohorts. Discussion In this retrospective analysis, it does not appear cytoreduction with either HU and/or anagrelide has a significant impact on ET symptom burden despite reducing vascular events. Importantly, the higher risk scores in HU patients did not translate directly into greater patient symptomatology supporting previous studies demonstrating a poor association between these two items. Prospective trials measuring ET symptom change, in the setting of randomized trials will better quantify impact of cytoreduction on symptom burden as well as quantify impact of newer agents such as interferon or jak inhibition. Figure 1. Symptom Comparisons Between HU, Anagrelide and Other Therapy Figure 1. Symptom Comparisons Between HU, Anagrelide and Other Therapy Disclosures Kiladjian: Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Travel grant; Research Funding paid to institution (Hôpital Saint-Louis et Université Paris Diderot); Novartis: Consultancy. Zweegman:Takeda: 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, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Harrison:Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cervantes:Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; CTI-Baxter: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Barbui:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Etienne:ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress Travel/Accomodations, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Roy:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. te Boekhorst:Novartis: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Research Funding paid to institution (University of Florence), Research Funding; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa:Novartis. Research- incyte, Gilead, cti, Genentech, promedior, NS Pharma: Consultancy.

Background Interferons are recognized as active agents in the treatment of patients with high risk essential thrombocythemia (ET) or polycythemia vera (PV), both in the upfront setting as well as beyond. Several trials have shown high rates of hematologic and molecular responses with the use of interferons, however, data on direct comparison of interferon activity in patients with early disease in comparison to patients refractory or resistant to prior therapies, such as hydroxyurea (HU) are lacking. We conducted a controlled analysis of the activity of pegylated interferon alfa-2a (PEG) in two prospective parallel clinical trials conducted in these two unique patient populations. Methods The MPD-RC 111 (NCT01259817) was an international, multicenter, phase 2 open-label clinical trial that evaluated PEG therapy in patients with high risk PV and high-risk ET who were either refractory or intolerant (R/I) to HU by modified ELN criteria. The MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) enrolled patients with high risk ET/PV who were treatment-naïve (TN) (HU <3 months) and randomized them (1:1) to PEG or HU. All patients randomized to PEG were included in this analysis. Both protocols were conducted concurrently at the MPD-RC member institutions and utilized a similar primary endpoint of overall response rate (complete and partial response rates) by ELN Criteria at 12 months confirmed by the same blinded central review committee. Both studies utilized the same PEG starting dose of 45 mcg weekly and was titrated for response to a maximum of 180 mcg weekly. Secondary endpoints included safety information, impact on disease biomarkers, bone marrow (BM) response, and quality of life data. Results Patients ET: 39 TN and 65 R/I ET patients were available for this analysis. Median disease duration was 2.9 months in TN and 37.3 months in R/I patients. Baseline characteristics and demographics were similar in the two cohorts except lower baseline hemoglobin level in RI patients. (Table1A) PV: 43 TN and 50 R/I PV patients were included. Median disease duration was 2.5 months in TN and 54.8 months in R/I patients. Baseline characteristics only differed by lower frequency of phlebotomy rate in R/I patients. (Table1B) Baseline symptoms scores and quality of life were similar in TN and RI groups (Table 2) Response ET: CR/PR/ORR at 12 months were observed in 43.1%/26.2%/69.2% in R/I ET patients and in 43.6%/25.6%/69.2% in TN ET patients (p=0.99 for ORR). (Table 3, Figure 1) PV: CR/PR/ORR at 12 months were observed in 22%/38%/60% in R/I PV patients, and in 27.9%/58.1%/86% in TN PV patients (p=0.005 for ORR). (Table 3, Figure 1) Safety PEG was equally well tolerated throughout both treatment groups with treatment discontinuation due to adverse events occurring in 14.6% in TN patients and 13.9% in R/I patients. The mean (SD) dose of PEG was 102.7 (52.3) mcg in R/I ET patients and 128.7mcg (46.4) in R/I PV patients. For TN patients, mean dose was 85.7mcg (59.7) in ET and 93.5 mcg (44.0) in PV. Adverse events were consistent with historic reports of PEG use and the distribution of events was similar in R/I and TN patients. (Table 4) Conclusion This intention to treat response analysis included TN and R/I ET and PV patients with balanced baseline characteristics who received prospective therapy with PEG. Patients with ET had a higher overall response rate at 12 months that was equivalent in patients who were treatment-naïve and in patients who were intolerant or refractory to HU. By contrast, patients with PV who were treatment-naïve had a higher ORR than patients those intolerant or refractory to HU. We conclude that treatment with PEG is an effective therapeutic option both treatment naïve PV and ET as well as those previously treated with HU, however PEG as a second line agent is especially effective in ET patients. Disclosures Yacoub: Hylapharm: Equity Ownership; Agios: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ardelyx: Equity Ownership; Cara: Equity Ownership; Dynavax: Equity Ownership. Mascarenhas:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmaessentia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding. Mesa:AbbVie: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Sierra Onc: Consultancy; Genotech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy. Rampal:Agios, Apexx, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, Constellation, and Jazz: Consultancy; Constellation, Incyte, and Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Silver:PharmEssentia: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. McMullin:Daiko Sanyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Italopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ewing:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Meeting attendance sponsorship ; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Other: Meeting attendance sponsorship . O'Connell:Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mead:Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CTI: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy. De Stefano:Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Baer:Astellas: Research Funding; Al Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Kremyanskaya:La Jolla: Consultancy; Incyte, Celgene, Constellation, Protagonist.: Research Funding. Hexner:novartis: Research Funding. Rambaldi:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau, travel support. Ritchie:Genentech: Other: Advisory board; Tolero: Other: Advisory board; agios: Other: Advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Advisory board, travel support; Celgene: Other: Advisory board; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene, Novartis: Other: travel support; AStella, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, NS Pharma, Pfizer: Research Funding; Ariad, Celgene, Incyte, Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer: Consultancy. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Harrison:Promedior: Honoraria; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; CTI: Speakers Bureau; AOP: Honoraria; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hoffman:Merus: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Pegylated Interferon Alfa-2a for in Patients with Polycythemia Vera or Essential Thrombocythemia

AbstractMyeloproliferative Neoplasms (MPN) course can be complicated by thrombosis involving unusual sites as the splanchnic veins (SVT). Their management is challenging, given their composite vascular risk. We performed a retrospective, cohort study in the framework of the International Working Group for MPN Research and Treatment (IWG‐MRT), and AIRC‐Gruppo Italiano Malattie Mieloproliferative (AGIMM). A total of 518 MPN‐SVT cases were collected and compared with 1628 unselected, control MPN population, matched for disease subtype. Those with MPN‐SVT were younger (median 44 years) and enriched in females compared to controls; PV (37.1%) and ET (34.4%) were the most frequent diagnoses. JAK2V617F mutation was highly prevalent (90.2%), and 38.6% of cases had an additional hypercoagulable disorder. SVT recurrence rate was 1.6 per 100 patient‐years. Vitamin K‐antagonists (VKA) halved the incidence of recurrence (OR 0.48), unlike cytoreduction (OR 0.96), and were not associated with overall or gastrointestinal bleeding in multivariable analysis. Esophageal varices were the only independent predictor for major bleeding (OR 17.4). Among MPN‐SVT, risk of subsequent vascular events was skewed towards venous thromboses compared to controls. However, MPN‐SVT clinical course was overall benign: SVT were enriched in PMF with lower IPSS, resulting in significantly longer survival than controls; survival was not affected in PV and slightly reduced in ET. MPN‐U with SVT (n = 55) showed a particularly indolent phenotype, with no signs of disease evolution. In the to‐date largest, contemporary cohort of MPN‐SVT, VKA were confirmed effective in preventing recurrence, unlike cytoreduction, and safe; the major risk factor for bleeding was esophageal varices that therefore represent a major therapeutic target.