Catalano, John

7046 Background: Momelotinib (MMB) is a potent JAK1, JAK2 and ACVR1 inhibitor with clinical activity against the hallmark features of myelofibrosis (MF), namely anemia, constitutional symptoms and splenomegaly, across the continuum of JAKi naïve or previously JAKi treated intermediate/high risk MF patients as demonstrated in the previously conducted Phase 3 SIMPLIFY-1 & -2 clinical trials (S1, S2). S1 enrolled JAKi-naïve patients with MF (n = 432) double-blind randomized 1:1 to MMB or ruxolitinib (RUX). S2 enrolled patients with MF with hematological toxicity during prior RUX therapy (n = 156) randomized 2:1 to open-label MMB or best available therapy (BAT; consisting of RUX in 88% of patients). In both trials, following the 24-week randomized treatment (RT) period, patients could continue MMB (MMB→MMB) and those randomized to RUX/BAT could cross-over to MMB (RUX/BAT→MMB) for extended treatment (ET). Previously published data from the SIMPLIFY studies demonstrate robust overall survival (OS) for MMB-treated patients in S1 and S2 (median not reached and 34.3 months, respectively) with a maximum follow up of approximately 5 years and median of 2.9 years in S1 and 2.3 years in S2. Methods: OS data for patients receiving MMB in S1 and S2 are reported here for subgroups defined by Week 24 (W24) transfusion independence (TI) responders vs non-responders, and also other efficacy endpoints. Survival was estimated using KM analysis with descriptive log-rank tests for comparison applied (all p-values are descriptive). Results: As previously reported, W24 TI rates were higher in the MMB arms of S1 (67% vs 49%) and S2 (43% vs 21%). In S1, W24 TI responders in the MMB group show an OS advantage, with median OS not reached and 3-year survival of 80% (HR = 0.30; p = 0.0001) compared to MMB TI non-responders. Similarly in S2, W24 TI responders in the MMB group show a trend toward better OS compared to TI non-responders (HR = 0.57; p = 0.0652). The HRs in S1 for MMB responders vs non-responders for W24 SRR and TSS were 0.59 (p = 0.0904) and 0.65 (p = 0.1657), respectively. Alternative analyses using OS defined from W24 demonstrated consistent results. Conclusions: These new analyses suggest JAKi naïve patients receiving MMB who maintain or achieve TI at W24 have favorable OS compared to MMB TI non-responders, with a similar trend observed in S2. These findings are consistent with anemia and transfusion dependency being key predictors of shortened OS in MF and suggest that TI response at W24 may become a surrogate for clinical benefit, supporting the clinical relevance of MMB’s differentiated pro-erythropoietic ACVR1 inhibition. Clinical trial information: NCT01969838.

6624 Background: RUX is a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor that demonstrated significant clinical benefit in patients (pts) with MF in COMFORT-I (NCT00952289), a phase 3, randomized (1:1), double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled study (N=309). Methods: Pts assessed MF-related symptoms daily using the modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form v2.0; Total Symptom Score (TSS) was calculated from individual scores for abdominal discomfort, pain under left ribs, early satiety, night sweats, itching, and bone/muscle pain. Therapy was interrupted if platelet or absolute neutrophil count fell below 50,000/µL or 500/µL, respectively. AEs were evaluated during treatment interruption or discontinuation. The protocol suggested an optional tapering strategy and possible addition of steroids if RUX therapy was discontinued for reasons other than thrombocytopenia. Results: In RUX-treated patients with treatment interruption, TSS gradually returned to baseline levels over approximately 1 week. The most common AE leading to treatment interruption or discontinuation in each group was thrombocytopenia (n=11, RUX) and abdominal pain (n=4, PBO). Of these, only 1 RUX pt discontinued for thrombocytopenia. A summary of new onset/worsening AE data after treatment interruption or discontinuation is presented (Table). Of 58 pts who discontinued study treatment, 23 (n=10, RUX; n=13, PBO) experienced a total of 43 SAEs (19, RUX; 24, PBO) that showed no specific pattern or difference between treatment groups. Four of 21 RUX-treated pts had dose tapering following study drug discontinuation. Conclusions: Apart from the expected return of MF-related symptoms, there was no pattern of AEs to suggest that RUX interruption or discontinuation is associated with a specific withdrawal syndrome. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background Melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT) is a standard therapy for NDMM recognized worldwide based on a statistically significant advantage in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs. MP (Facon Lancet 2007; Fayers Blood 2011; NCCN 2013). The combination of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) increased OS with fewer adverse events (AEs) than treatment with lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone in NDMM pts (ECOG E4A03) (Rajkumar Lancet Oncol 2010). The FIRST trial is a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Rd versus MPT in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts. Methods NDMM pts either ≥ 65 years of age, or not candidates for SCT were randomized to one of three arms: Rd in 28-day cycles until disease progression (Arm A), Rd in 28-day cycles for 72 weeks (18 cycles, Arm B), or MPT in 42-day cycles for 72 weeks (12 cycles, Arm C). Assessments by International Myeloma Working Group criteria were done after each cycle. Pts with renal impairment were enrolled; however, pts on dialysis were excluded. Starting doses of lenalidomide and dexamethasone were adjusted based on renal function and age, respectively. Melphalan starting dose was adjusted based on age, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, and renal function; and thalidomide was adjusted for age. Dose adjustments were permitted for AEs. All pts were required to receive anti-thrombotic prophylaxis. Stratification factors included age, International Stage System, and country. The primary endpoint was a comparison of PFS in Arm A vs. Arm C. Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR), time to response, duration of response (DOR), safety, and quality of life (QOL). A preplanned additional analysis included time from randomization to second progression event or death (PFS2). The final preplanned analysis of independently adjudicated progressive disease (PD) events in Arm A vs. Arm C conducted after 960 events of death or PD, and an interim of OS in 64% of survival events (574/896 events) are presented in this abstract. Comparisons of PFS and all secondary endpoints, including OS for all three arms, will be presented at the meeting. Results A total of 1,623 pts were randomized 1:1:1 in three arms. As of today, 121 pts continue to receive lenalidomide on study (Arm A). The median age was 73 (40.0–92.0) years; 35% pts were aged ≥ 75 years; and 41% of pts had ISS stage 3 disease. After a median follow-up of 37 months, the trial met its primary endpoint (PFS), demonstrating a 28% reduction in risk of progression or death (HR=0.72; p= 0.00006). The preplanned interim analysis of OS demonstrated a 22% reduction in risk of death in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C (HR=0.78, p=0.01685); however, the pre-specified boundary (p<0.0096) was not crossed. All other secondary endpoints consistently showed improvement in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C; ORR (PR or better) 75% vs. 62% (p < 0.00001), DOR (HR=0.63; p<0.00001), and PFS2 (HR=0.78, p=0.0051). Relevant Grade 3/4 adverse events in Arm A vs. Arm C were neutropenia (28% vs. 45%), thrombocytopenia (8% vs. 11%), febrile neutropenia (1% vs. 3%), infection (29% vs. 17%), neuropathy (5% vs. 15%), and deep-vein thrombosis (5% vs. 3%). The incidence of secondary primary malignancies (SPM) was evaluated. Hematologic malignancies were 0.4% in Arm A vs. 2.2% in Arm C; the overall incidence of solid tumors was identical (2.8%). Conclusion Continuous treatment with the all oral doublet Rd significantly improved the primary endpoint of PFS compared with the standard triplet, MPT. All secondary endpoints support the clinical benefit of continuous Rd treatment. The safety profile of Rd was manageable, with reduced hematologic SPM compared to MPT. Disclosures: Facon: Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide as treatment for NDMM. Dimopoulos:Celgene, Orthobiotech: Honoraria. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Millenium, Jansenn, Pfizer: Research Funding. Catalano:Celgene, Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hulin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Celgene, Janssen, Millennium, Onyx, Brystol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pinto:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ludwig:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Celgene: Honoraria. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Oriol:Celgen: Consultancy. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Binder:Celgene: Research Funding. Anderson:Acetylon, OncoPep: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Onyx, Sanofi Aventis, Gileod: Consultancy. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Attal:Janssen: Lectures, Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knight:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment. Van Oostendorp:Celgene: Employment. Jacques:Celgene: Employment. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Patents & Royalties. Benboubker:Celgene: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 278 Background: Overactive JAK-STAT signaling as a result of gain-of-function mutations (eg, JAK2V617F) and/or high circulating levels of inflammatory cytokines is considered to play a key role in the pathogenesis of myeloproliferative neoplasms. Ruxolitinib, a selective oral inhibitor of JAK1 and JAK2, demonstrated a significant reduction in spleen volume (SV) and improvements in myelofibrosis (MF)-related symptoms in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial (COMFORT-I). The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of ruxolitinib across patient (pt) subgroups in COMFORT-I. Methods: Pts with MF were randomized to start placebo or ruxolitinib at a dose of 15 mg or 20 mg PO BID depending on baseline platelet count (100–200 ×109/L or >200 ×109/L, respectively). The dose was optimized for efficacy and safety during treatment. SV change was measured by MRI; MF symptoms were assessed using a daily diary (modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form [MFSAF] v2.0) over 1 wk prior to dosing and throughout the 24 wks of dosing. The percent changes from baseline to wk 24 in SV and MFSAF Total Symptom Score (TSS, a measure of combined scores for abdominal discomfort, pain under ribs on left side, early satiety, itching, night sweats, and bone/muscle pain) were compared for ruxolitinib and placebo pts across the following subgroups: MF disease subtype, age, International Prognosis Scoring System (IPSS) risk group, presence/absence of JAK2V617F mutation, baseline hemoglobin, baseline spleen size (palpable spleen length), and baseline TSS. Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Changes in SV and TSS Across Subgroups: 309 pts were randomized: 155 to ruxolitinib and 154 to placebo. Ruxolitinib demonstrated consistent benefit compared with placebo in both SV and TSS across all subgroups evaluated (Table). The impact of symptom severity on response was evaluated by baseline TSS quartiles (maximum score for TSS = 60). Ruxolitinib pts with baseline TSS of <8.5, 8.5-<16.5, 16.5-<25.5 and ≥25.5 had mean percent changes in SV of −28.0, −31.4, −31.7 and −34.8, respectively, vs +8.1 for all placebo pts combined. The mean percent change in TSS for these same subgroups was −40.5, −47.2, −48.1 and −48.2 vs +41.8 for all placebo pts combined. These data indicate that pts with modest to marked symptoms all benefit from ruxolitinib therapy in terms of both SV and TSS. Survival Analysis: 13 ruxolitinib and 24 placebo pts died during the study or during extended follow-up (median follow-up of 52 and 51 wks, respectively), representing a hazard ratio (95% CI) of 0.499 (0.254, 0.98) (p=0.0395). For ruxolitinib- and placebo-treated pts, respectively, the probability of survival (95% CI) >48 wks was 0.98 (0.92, 0.99) and 0.90 (0.81, 0.95) for pts with baseline hemoglobin values ≥10 g/dL and 0.84 (0.72, 0.91) and 0.77 (0.63, 0.86) for pts with baseline hemoglobin <10 g/dL. Conclusions: Pts receiving ruxolitinib had higher response rates than placebo based on reductions in SV and improvements in TSS at wk 24 regardless of baseline subgroup: MF disease subtype, age (≤65 or >65 y), IPSS risk group (intermediate-2 or high-risk), presence or absence of JAK2V617F mutation, hemoglobin level (≥10 g/dL or <10 g/dL), palpable spleen length (≤10 cm or >10 cm), and symptom severity (TSS quartile). In addition, the overall survival analysis suggested a benefit with ruxolitinib therapy over placebo. Disclosures: Verstovsek: Incyte: Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; SBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Gotlib:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding. Levy:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gupta:Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Catalano:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Deininger:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Miller:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Winton:Incyte: Consultancy. Arcasoy:Incyte: Research Funding. Lyons:Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Telik: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Vaddi:Incyte: Employment. Erickson-Viitanen:Incyte: Employment. Sun:Incyte: Employment. Sandor:Incyte: Employment. Kantarjian:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 5146 Background: Myelofibrosis (MF) is characterized by splenomegaly, debilitating symptoms, hematologic abnormalities, and shortened survival. COMFORT-I is a Phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib in patients (pts) with MF. The placebo arm of this ongoing study provides a unique population in which to assess the clinical burden of MF in a controlled setting. Methods: 151 pts with intermediate-2 or high-risk primary-MF (PMF), post-polycythemia vera-MF (PPV-MF), or post-essential thombocythemia-MF (PET-MF) who were not candidates for other therapies were randomized to receive placebo in COMFORT-I after a 28-day washout of previous MF therapies. Assessments included MF symptoms measured daily using an electronic diary (modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form [MFSAF] v2.0), spleen volume measured every 12 wks by blinded abdominal MRI or CT scans, and laboratory measures at least monthly through wk 24. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMISE) Fatigue and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) questionnaires were administered at each visit. Pts with missing data (baseline or post-baseline assessment measured), or pts who withdrew or crossed over to active treatment before a study visit were not included in analyses. Results: 151 pts received 1 or more doses of placebo (median exposure 204 days). The study included 65% high-risk and 35% intermediate-2 risk pts, with a median of 2.5 years since diagnosis. 55% had PMF, 31% PPV-MF, and 14% PET-MF. Regardless of prior MF therapy (57% were on hydroxyurea), there was continual worsening of symptoms over time as assessed by the MFSAF Total Symptom Score (TSS, comprised of scores for night sweats, itching, abdominal pain and discomfort, early satiety and bone/muscle pain) (see Figure). At wk 24, mean/median spleen volume increased by +8.1%/+8.5%, and both intermediate-2 and high-risk pts demonstrated progressive disease over the course of the study. Mean/median PROMIS Fatigue score worsened by 9.1%/6.5%. Mean/median score for the PGIC (a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = very much improved to 7 = very much worse, with 4 = no change) was 4.2/4.0 at wk 24; 19.6% of pts reported feeling much worse or very much worse. Mean/median total body weight changed from 72.0 kg/72.2 kg to 70.1 kg/69.7 kg at wk 24. Hematology assessments (median, baseline vs wk 24) were as follows: hemoglobin, 105 vs 106 g/L; platelets, 233 vs 219 x109/L; neutrophils, 14.8 vs 16.0 x109/L; white blood cell count, 18.4 vs 20.1 x109/L. Two of 151 pts had new-onset (new or worsening) grade 3 or grade 4 thrombocytopenia, and 23/151 pts had new-onset grade 3 or grade 4 anemia. 16 pts met protocol-specified criteria for unblinding and crossover to active treatment before wk 24, which was a 25% increase in MRI-based spleen volume either with or without increased pain or weight loss; thus, mean and median values reported at wk 24 may represent an underestimate of the degree of worsening in disease parameters. Conclusion: The signs and symptoms of MF continued to worsen over a 6-month time frame in this placebo population. The data illustrate the progressive nature of MF and support the need for effective therapeutic interventions. Moreover, treatment benefit must be benchmarked against continual evolution of the disease in the absence of treatment. Early recognition of the debilitating symptoms of MF and intervention with effective therapy to prevent continual worsening of the disease should be strongly considered. Disclosures: Verstovsek: Incyte: Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; SBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Gotlib:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding. Levy:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gupta:Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Catalano:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Deininger:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Miller:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Winton:Incyte: Consultancy. Arcasoy:Incyte: Research Funding. Lyons:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Telik: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding. Vaddi:Incyte: Employment. Erickson-Viitanen:Incyte: Employment. Sun:Incyte: Employment. Sandor:Incyte: Employment. Kantarjian:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3842 Background: Dysregulated JAK-STAT signaling is a key feature in MF, which is characterized by splenomegaly, debilitating symptoms, poor quality of life (QoL), cytopenias, and shortened survival. Ruxolitinib is a selective JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor with clinical activity in MF. COMFORT-I is a Phase III, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of ruxolitinib in patients with MF. At wk 24, 41.9% of patients receiving ruxolitinib reached the protocol-defined threshold of a ≥35% reduction in spleen volume (SV) compared to 0.7% in the placebo group (p<0.0001). The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the relationship between SV reduction achieved with ruxolitinib treatment and changes in symptoms and QoL. Methods: 309 patients were randomized to receive ruxolitinib (n=155) or placebo (n=154). Initial dosing was based on baseline platelet counts: 15 mg BID for counts of 100–200 x109/L and 20 mg BID for >200 x109/L. SV was measured by blinded imaging (MRI or CT scan) every 12 wks. Via electronic diary, patients reported MF symptoms daily using the modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) v2.0. The Total Symptom Score (TSS) from the MFSAF represents a combined score for the individual symptoms of abdominal discomfort, pain under ribs on left side, early satiety, itching, night sweats, and bone/muscle pain. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMISE) Fatigue questionnaires were administered at each visit; Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) was administered at every visit beginning at wk 4. The PGIC rates a patient's overall sense of whether a treatment has been beneficial or not on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 = very much improved to 7 = very much worse, with 4 = no change. Results: Baseline QoL scores reflected debilitating disease, and were similar to scores for similar-aged patients with other cancers (Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, et al. EORTC QLQ-C30 Reference Values Manual, July 2008). The impact on patients was particularly evident on the PROMIS Fatigue scale and QLC-C30 Global Health, Physical Functioning, Role Functioning, and Social Functioning subscales. Baseline Symptom and QoL Measures* Associations between changes in symptoms and QoL with the objectively measured changes in SV were evaluated. Patients receiving ruxolitinib were grouped according to SV reduction at 24 wks of treatment: ≥35% reduction in SV (n=65), 10-<35% (n=51), and <10% (n=23). Symptom and QoL responses were evaluated among the various subgroups (of the SV reduction percentage strata) and comparisons were made across these and the total placebo group (n=106). Shown in the Figure are mean changes at wk 24 relative to baseline for TSS, QoL indicators, and PGIC scores. Conclusions: Changes in SV as low as 10% in ruxolitinib-treated patients were associated with improvements on EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health subscale, PROMISE Fatigue scale, and the MFSAF v2.0 diary TSS. Moreover, commensurate improvements in these outcomes were observed as the SV reduction increased. Importantly, the simple PGIC questionnaire allowed patients to characterize a meaningful change in their condition that was consistent with more comprehensive measures of MF symptoms and quality of life, reflecting a doctor-patient assessment easily applied to clinical practice. Disclosures: Mesa: Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; SBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Gotlib:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gupta:Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Catalano:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Deininger:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Shields:Incyte: Consultancy. Miller:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Winton:Incyte: Consultancy. Hare:Incyte: Employment. Erickson-Viitanen:Incyte: Employment. Sun:Incyte: Employment. Sandor:Incyte: Employment. Levy:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kantarjian:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Verstovsek:Incyte: Research Funding.

Abstract Background In the primary analysis of the phase III COMFORT-I study, the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib (RUX) significantly improved splenomegaly, myelofibrosis (MF)-related symptoms, and quality of life (QoL) measures in patients (pts) with MF versus placebo (PBO). An additional analysis (median follow-up 51 weeks [wks)]) showed RUX was associated with a survival advantage versus PBO (Verstovsek et al. N Engl J Med2012). Longer term follow-up (median 102 wks) showed durable SV reductions and QoL improvements. At this time point, RUX continued to be associated with a survival advantage, despite all pts originally randomized to PBO having discontinued or crossed over to ruxolitinib shortly after the primary analysis (Verstovsek et al. ASH 2012. abstract 800). We report additional longer-term follow-up of pts from COMFORT-I. Methods In COMFORT-I, 309 pts were randomized (1:1) to RUX or PBO. RUX starting dose depended on baseline platelet count (100–200´109/L: 15 mg BID; >200´109/L: 20 mg BID). Doses could be titrated for lack of efficacy or excess toxicity as specified in the protocol. Pts receiving PBO could crossover to RUX after the primary analysis (ie, when all pts completed 24 wks and half the pts completed 36 wks of therapy) or at any time if they met protocol-specified criteria for worsening splenomegaly. The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts who achieved a ≥35% reduction in spleen volume (SV) at wk 24. Symptoms were assessed up to wk 24 using the modified MF Symptom Assessment Form v2.0. QoL continued to be evaluated beyond wk 24 using the EORTC QoL Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30). Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis according to original randomized treatment. To better understand the effect of crossover on the PBO arm, statistical modeling of survival was conducted using a generalized Gamma distribution. Results Median follow-up was 149 wks at the time of this updated analysis. Of 155 pts originally randomized to RUX, 77 remain on therapy. Of 154 pts originally randomized to PBO, 111 crossed over to RUX; the median time to crossover was 41.1 wks (range, 5.1–65.4). At wk 24, pts originally randomized to RUX had a mean SV reduction of −31.6%; this was durable for pts who continued on RUX, where the mean SV reduction at wk 144 was −34.1%. Fifty-nine percent (91/155) of pts originally randomized to RUX achieved a ≥35% SV reduction at any time during study; for these pts, the probability of maintaining this response for >132 weeks from the time of their initial response was 0.53. Pts originally randomized to RUX who continued on therapy experienced durable improvements in the Global Health Status/QoL and functional domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Overall survival favored RUX (HR=0.69; 95% CI: 0.46, 1.03; P= 0.067; Fig 1), with 42 and 54 deaths among pts originally randomized to RUX and PBO, respectively. Modeling of the hazard function of death over time to explore the effect of crossover to RUX in pts originally randomized to PBO showed a decrease in hazard for these pts, which corresponded to an increased proportion of pts crossing over to RUX. In pts originally randomized to RUX who continued on therapy, there was no substantial change in the rate, distribution, or severity of nonhematologic adverse events (AEs) with longer-term therapy; most nonhematologic AEs were grade 1 or 2. Mean and median hemoglobin and platelet count remained stable with longer-term therapy. Consistent with this, the incidence of new onset grade 3 or 4 anemia and thrombocytopenia observed after the first 6 months of RUX therapy decreased relative to that seen in the first 6 months of therapy (Fig 2). With approximately 1 year of additional follow up, 4 new cases of acute myeloid leukemia were reported: 2 pts originally randomized to PBO (376 and 666 days after crossover to RUX) and 2 pts originally randomized to RUX (848 and 1143 days after starting RUX). Conclusions After a median follow-up of 149 wks, the hazard ratio for overall survival favored pts originally randomized to RUX over those originally randomized to PBO, the majority of whom crossed over to RUX. The hazard of death for pts originally randomized to PBO decreased as pts crossed over to RUX. SV reductions and QoL improvements were sustained with longer-term therapy. The incidence of new onset grade 3 or 4 anemia and thrombocytopenia decreased with longer-term therapy. Collectively, these data reinforce the durable efficacy and longer-term safety of RUX in pts with MF. Disclosures: Verstovsek: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Mesa:Genentech: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding. Gotlib:Incyte Corporation: Travel support, Travel support Other; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Levy:Incyte Corporation: Equity Ownership; Incyte Corporation: Employment. Gupta:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Inctye Corporation: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Deininger:BMS, ARIAD, NOVARTIS: Consultancy; BMS, NOVARTIS, CELGENE, GILEAD: Research Funding; ARIAD, NOVARTIS: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other. Miller:Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Ariad: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Winton:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Arcasoy:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Lyons:Lilly: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Paquette:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Raza:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Onconova Inc: Research Funding. Vaddi:Incyte Corporation: Employment; Incyte Corporation: Equity Ownership. Sun:Incyte: Employment; Incyte: Equity Ownership. Peng:Incyte Corporation: Employment; Incyte Corporation: Equity Ownership. Sandor:Incyte: Employment; Incyte: Equity Ownership. Kantarjian:Ariad: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Cytogenetic abnormalities in patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) are of prognostic importance and can be associated with poor outcomes (Bergsagel, Blood, 2011). The FIRST trial is a pivotal phase 3 study with the largest data set in transplant-ineligible pts with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). This subanalysis evaluates the impact of cytogenetics on outcomes in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM continuously treated with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous). Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment arms: Rd continuous, Rd18 (Rd for 18 cycles [72 weeks]), or melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT; for 12 cycles [72 weeks]). Cytogenetics were assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Pts were categorized into cytogenetic risk groups according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. High-risk cytogenetics included del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16); all other pts were categorized as non-high risk. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; primary comparators were Rd continuous vs MPT), and key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: A total of 762 of 1623 pts from the intent-to-treat population had validated cytogenetic profiles, with 142 pts in the high-risk group and 620 pts in the non-high-risk group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across cytogenetic risk groups (Table 1). The median follow-up for OS was 40.2 months for the 762 pts in this analysis (data cutoff, March 03, 2014). In the non-high-risk group, median duration of treatment was 19.4 months with Rd continuous and 16.6 months with both Rd18 and MPT. In the high-risk group, median duration of treatment was 10.0 months with Rd continuous, 8.2 months with Rd18, and 12.0 months with MPT. Rd continuous treatment resulted in a 24% reduced risk of death or progression compared with MPT and an even greater 32% reduced risk in pts without high-risk cytogenetics (Table 2). In non-high-risk pts, median PFS was 31.1 months with Rd continuous compared with 21.2 and 24.9 months with Rd18 and MPT, respectively (Figure). However, in high-risk pts, the observed numerical median PFS favoring Rd18 is mainly due to small pt numbers influenced by long runners (n = 5), and the greatly overlapping 95% CIs from all 3 arms show the difference is likely to be minimal. Rd continuous treatment resulted in a 28% reduced risk of death vs MPT overall and a 34% reduced risk in pts without high-risk cytogenetics. OS was similar across treatment arms for high-risk pts. ORRs in all cytogenetic risk groups favored Rd continuous vs MPT. In pts with high-risk cytogenetics, higher-quality responses were also observed with Rd continuous vs MPT treatment. Similar results were seen with Rd continuous compared with Rd18, although OS and ORR benefits overall and in pts without high-risk cytogenetics were not as pronounced. In all 3 treatment arms, adverse events were consistent across cytogenetic risk groups. Conclusions: Rd continuous treatment resulted in PFS and OS benefits vs MPT in pts with validated cytogenetic profiles. This was largely due to PFS and OS improvements in pts without high-risk cytogenetics. In the high-risk group, the longest PFS was observed with Rd18 treatment and OS was similar across treatment arms. Despite being on the continuous vs fixed duration treatment arm, high-risk pts on Rd continuous received a shorter duration of treatment than those on MPT, which may explain why PFS favored MPT vs Rd continuous. Higher response rates were observed with Rd continuous vs MPT, regardless of cytogenetic risk, and greater quality responses were observed in pts with high-risk cytogenetics. The safety profile of Rd continuous was manageable and consistent between cytogenetic risk groups. Results support Rd continuous as a standard treatment option for pts with NDMM who are ineligible for transplant, especially those without high-risk cytogenetics. Additional PFS and OS benefits may be achieved in pts with high-risk cytogenetics when Rd continuous is used as a backbone for combination therapy with a novel agent. Promising activity in pts with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities has been demonstrated using this approach (Lonial et al, N Engl J Med, 2015; Stewart et al, N Engl J Med, 2015). Disclosures Hulin: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria. Reece:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding. Catalano:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pinto:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria. Ludwig:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Cavo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, BMS: Honoraria. Moreau:Takeda: Other: Adboard; Janssen: Other: Adboard; Novartis: Other: Adboard; Amgen: Other: Adboard; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Adboard. Qiu:Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau. Schots:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Marek:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yiu:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Facon:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pierre Fabre: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Purpose: Updated results, including response rate data, from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing thalidomide plus dexamethasone versus dexamethasone alone as primary therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: Patients (pts) with previously untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible. Pts were randomized to Thal/Dex (Arm A) or placebo plus Dex (Arm B). Pts in Arm A received Thal 50 mg PO daily, escalated to 100 mg on day 15, and to 200 mg from day 1 of cycle 2; Dex 40 mg PO was given on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20. Pts in Arm B received placebo instead of Thal, and Dex as in Arm A. Each cycles was 28 days long. Treatment was continued until progression or undue toxicity. The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP) defined using EBMT criteria. All analyses were conducted on an intent to treat basis. An independent data monitoring committee recommended release of results. Results: 470 pts were enrolled: 235 were randomized to Thal/Dex and 235 to placebo/Dex. Median follow up is 18 months. Median age was 65 yrs. The response rate (CR+PR) was significantly higher with Thal/Dex compared to placebo/Dex, 59% vs 42%, respectively, P<0.001. Eighty-two percent of patients have gone off-study. TTP was significantly superior with Thal/Dex vs placebo/Dex, median TTP not reached with Thal/Dex versus 8.1 months (95% CI: 6.5–12.8 months) with placebo/Dex, P<0.001. Major grade 3–4 events are summarized in the Table below. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was higher with Thal/Dex vs placebo/Dex, 15.4% vs 4.3%, respectively. Conclusions: Thal/Dex yields superior response rates and TTP compared to Dex alone when used as first-line therapy for multiple myeloma. Major Grade 3–4 adverse events Adverse Event Thal/Dex (n=234) Placebo/Dex (n=232) Venous thromboembolism (Grade >=3) 17.9% 4.3% Cerebral ischemia (Grade >=3) 3.0% 1.3% Myocardial ischemia (Grade >=3) 3.8% 2.2% Neuropathy (Grade >=3) 3.0% 0% Any toxicity (Grade >=4) 30.3% 22.8%