Ailts, Isaak

Sarcomas are rare heterogenous mesenchymal tumors with over seventy-five different subtypes, with varying biology and outcomes, with no clear inciting factor in the vast majority. To determine the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in patients with sarcomas, we undertook a prospective multi-site study of germline sequencing using an 84-gene next-generation sequencing panel among patients receiving care at the four Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers. Of 115 patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma, the median age was 60 years, 49.6% were female, 82.6% were White. The anatomical location of the primary tumor included extremities (34.8%), retroperitoneum (19.1%), trunk (13.0%), and head and neck (7.8%). Family history of cancer was present in 62.6% of the study population. Ten patients (8.7%) had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (PGV). Of these, three had stage IV sarcoma, and seven had earlier-stage sarcoma (stages I–III). Among the 55 (48.7%) patients who had variant of uncertain significance (VUS), 41.1% (22/55) had stage IV sarcoma and 58.9% (33/55) had earlier-stage disease. Of the ten patients with PGV, high-to-moderate penetrance gene abnormalities were identified in eight patients (80%) involving TP53 (3), BRCA1 (1), SDHA (1), ATM (2), and NBN (1) genes. The vast majority of the PGVs (70%) would not have been detected using the current guidelines. Because of the paucity of sarcomas and lack of effective treatment options for advanced disease, germline testing in sarcomas represents a potentially impactful strategy to assess therapeutic options and for assessment of familial risk.

PURPOSE Polycythemia vera (PV) is characterized by JAK/STAT activation, thrombotic/hemorrhagic events, systemic symptoms, and disease transformation. In high-risk PV, ruxolitinib controls blood counts and improves symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS MAJIC-PV is a randomized phase II trial of ruxolitinib versus best available therapy (BAT) in patients resistant/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC-INT/RES). Primary outcome was complete response (CR) within 1 year. Secondary outcomes included duration of response, event-free survival (EFS), symptom, and molecular response. RESULTS One hundred eighty patients were randomly assigned. CR was achieved in 40 (43%) patients on ruxolitinib versus 23 (26%) on BAT (odds ratio, 2.12; 90% CI, 1.25 to 3.60; P = .02). Duration of CR was superior for ruxolitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.61; P < .001). Symptom responses were better with ruxolitinib and durable. EFS (major thrombosis, hemorrhage, transformation, and death) was superior for patients attaining CR within 1 year (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.78; P = .01); and those on ruxolitinib (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94; P = .03). Serial analysis of JAK2V617F variant allele fraction revealed molecular response was more frequent with ruxolitinib and was associated with improved outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS] P = .001, EFS P = .001, overall survival P = .01) and clearance of JAK2V617F stem/progenitor cells. ASXL1 mutations predicted for adverse EFS (HR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.47 to 6.17; P = .003). The safety profile of ruxolitinib was as previously reported. CONCLUSION The MAJIC-PV study demonstrates ruxolitinib treatment benefits HC-INT/RES PV patients with superior CR, and EFS as well as molecular response; importantly also demonstrating for the first time, to our knowledge, that molecular response is linked to EFS, PFS, and OS.

Abstract Sarcomas are rare heterogenous mesenchymal tumors with over 75 different subtypes, with varying biology and outcomes, with no clear inciting factor in the vast majority. The germline genetic susceptibility to sarcoma is not very well characterized. Identification of any underlying germline predisposition can have important implications for treatment of patients and screening recommendations for family members. To determine the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in patients with sarcomas, we undertook the Interrogating Cancer Etiology Using Proactive Genetic Testing (INTERCEPT) study, a prospective multi-site study of germline sequencing using a &gt;80-gene next-generation sequencing platform. The study was done at the three Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020. Patients were not selected based on stage, family cancer history, ethnicity, or age. Family cascade testing was offered at no charge. Results: 115 adult patients with soft tissue sarcoma were included in the study. The median age was 60 years, 58.5% were male, 81% were White. The anatomical location of the primary tumor included extremities (33.0%), retroperitoneum (18.2%), trunk (12.2%), head and neck (7.8%). Family history of cancer was present in 63% of the study population. Ten patients (8.7%) had a PGV. Thirty percent of the patients with PGV had stage IV sarcoma (3/10), and 70% (7/10) had earlier stage sarcoma (stages I-III). Among patients who were found to have a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), 40% (22/55) had stage IV sarcoma and 60% (33/55) had earlier stage disease. Of the 10 patients with PGV, high to medium penetrance gene abnormalities were identified in 8 patients (80%) involving TP53 (3), BRCA1 (1), SDHA (1), ATM (2) and heterozygous deletion of NBN (1) genes. Of these PGV, gene deletions were observed in 6/10 while missense variants comprised the remaining 4. The vast majority of the PGV (70%) would not have been identified using the current guidelines utilizing the 2018 or 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) or American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Conclusion: In this prospective, multi-site study comprising over 100 patients with diverse sarcomas, unselected germline testing identified a PGV in 1 in 11 patients (8.7%) with the majority of these not being detected using current standard of care guidelines for genetic testing. Because of the rarity of sarcomas, in addition to limited effective treatment options for advanced disease, large scale germline testing in sarcomas represents a potentially impactful strategy to assess therapeutic options and for assessment of familial risk. Citation Format: Isaak Ailts, Michael A. Golafshar, Katie L. Kunze, Margaret Klint, Kathleen Barrus, Samuel Nussbaum, Edward Esplin, Brandie Leach, Sarah Young, Niloy Jewel Samadder, Mahesh Seetharam. Germline cancer susceptibility gene testing in unselected patients with soft tissue sarcoma: a multi-center prospective study. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Precision Prevention, Early Detection, and Interception of Cancer; 2022 Nov 17-19; Austin, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Can Prev Res 2023;16(1 Suppl): Abstract nr P056.

Abstract MAJIC is a phase II trial of Ruxolitinib (RUX) vs Best Available Therapy (BAT) in polycythemia vera (PV) patients with resistance/intolerance to Hydroxycarbamide (HC). This analysis involved a primary comparison between the RUX and BAT arms for quality of life (QOL) durability over 60 months, with secondary comparisons of best QOL response within first year in complete hematologic responders (CR) vs a group of partial or no response (NR/PR). This is a unique analysis due to cross-over nature of prior studies. Patients were stratified by treatment arm with either RUX or BAT. QOL was assessed over 0-60 months using the Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF). MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS) was computed as the average of all completed items multiplied by 10 (scale 0-100, higher score represents higher symptom burden). Estimates of change from baseline and between arm differences in change by timepoint were made using a linear mixed model with compound symmetry covariance structure, which included covariates for categorical time point, treatment arm, and the interaction between time point and treatment arm. The difference between arms in proportion of patients with best post-baseline TSS response of 50% or greater was testing using a Chi-square test. In this study, 147 of the 190 trial patients had started treatment and completed at least their baseline assessment and were included in the analysis with 39 patients completing through 60 months. Groups were comprised of 76 patients in the RUX group (31 females, 45 males, mean age 64.2 [SD 11.4]) and 71 patients in the BAT group (29 females, 42 males, mean age 64.6 [SD 11.5]). Symptom scores at baseline were similar between arms, with MPN-SAF weight loss the only statistically significant difference (BAT 0.7 [SD 1.71] vs RUX 1.7 [SD 2.83], p=0.02). Significant, durable improvements in TSS were noted in RUX patients with symptom improvements lasting a mean of 52 months. BAT patients experienced a worsening of their symptom burden with improvements back to baseline notable at 56 months (Figure 1). MPN-SAF TSS there were significant differences between treatment arms in change from baseline to months 2-32, 44, and 48 (all p&lt;0.05). In all months the trend was in the direction of larger improvement in the RUX arm, with the point estimate for difference ranging from 2.1 (at month 56) to 11.3 (at month 4) with most prominent changes occurring between months 2 and 32. Of the 80 patients with MPN-SAF TSS scores at baseline and at least one post-baseline timepoint, 13/41 (31.7%) BAT and 24/39 (61.5%) RUX patients had TSS reduction of 50% or greater in at least one time point, which was statistically significant (p=0.008). In regard to specific symptoms, there was a statistically significant between arm difference seen in over 5 timepoints for fatigue, early satiety, night-sweats, itching, bone pain, and weight loss. Comparing MPN-SAF TSS in Complete Response (CR n=51) vs Non-Responder/Partial Responders (NR/PR) (n=96) there was no difference at baseline in any of the measures at any time point. A possible limitation of this study is the potential for bias in which the patients who were lost to follow up could be different then the patients who remained in the study through all 60 months which would affect generalization, particularly at time points at the later years. The novel findings of this investigation demonstrate that Ruxolitinib ameliorates the PV symptom burden in patients resistant or intolerant to HC in a robust durable manner over at least four years, while patients receiving BAT have worsening of their symptom burden over this same time period. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mead: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Yap: Celgene: Honoraria; Faron Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Scherber: Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Knapper: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Ended employment in the past 24 months, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Drummond: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. McMullin: 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, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: clinical trial support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mesa: CTI: Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Pharma: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy. Harrison: CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Galacteo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Promedior: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keros: 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract The myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) polycythaemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythaemia (ET) are associated with significant symptom burden with impaired quality of life (QoL). In the MAJIC study patients refractory/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC), were randomised to treatment with ruxolitinib (Rux) or best available therapy (BAT). In this unique and comprehensive analysis we explore quality of life (QoL) outcomes in the MAJIC study using the MPN10 Self-Assessment Form (SAF) in particular using this unique dataset to explore for the first time differences between JAK2 ET vs PV, and JAK2 ET vs CALR ET at baseline and 12 months of therapy with Rux or BAT. Methods 306 patients were randomised, (190, PV and 116 ET arm) and followed for 5 years, no cross over was permitted. MPN10 SAF was assessed at baseline, 2, 4, 8 and 12 months in both arms. Equal variance two sample t-tests were used to test differences between diagnosis groups (JAK2 ET vs PV & JAK2 ET vs CALR ET) in baseline scores and 12-month change from baseline scores, here negative change from baseline indicates improvement. QoL data was also collected using MD Anderson Symptoms Inventory (MDASI) and 5 level EQ5D at the same time points as the MPN10 SAF. Results JAK2 ET vs PV 110 participants with JAK2 mutation were included in the analysis for JAK2 ET vs PV. 81 (74%) had PV and 29 (26%) had JAK2 ET; 44 patients (54.3%) with PV and 18 (62.1%) patients with ET were randomised to Rux, and 37 (45.6%) patients with PV and 11 (37.9%) with ET to BAT. Baseline mean total symptom score (TSS) was similar (JAK2 ET: 18.9. SD 18.4 and PV: 23.7, SD 17.81 (p=0.27). Mean for pruritus was 1.9 (SD 2.47) in JAK2 ET and 3.5 (SD 2.99) in PV (p=0.03). Other baseline scores were comparable: mean scores for fatigue was 3.3 (SD 3.07) for JAK2 ET vs 4.7 (SD 2.68) for PV, for early satiety was 2.6 (SD 2.78) for JAK2 ET vs 2.1 (SD 2.40) for PV, for abdominal discomfort 3.0 (SD 3.34) for JAK2 ET vs 2.0 (SD 2.78) for PV, for inactivity was 2.4 (SD 2.86) for JAK2 ET vs 3.2 (SD 2.72) for PV; for concentration problems was 2.2 (SD 2.51) for JAK2 ET vs 2.9 (SD 3.11) for PV, for night sweats was 1.6 (SD 2.20) for JAK2 ET vs 2.1 (SD 2.66) for PV, for bone pain was 1.8 (SD 2.97) for JAK2 ET vs 2.0 (SD 2.86) for PV, for fever was 0.5 (SD 1.46) for JAK2 ET vs 0.5 (SD 1.70) for PV and for weight loss was 0.3 (SD 0.73) for JAK2 ET vs 1.0 (SD 2.15) for PV (p&gt;0.05 for all). Concerning change at 12 months, mean (SD) change in TSS was -0.5 (SD 10.86) for JAK2 ET (n=21) vs -0.8 (SD 13.32) for PV (n=66) (P=0.93). Mean for individual symptom scores at 12 months were also not significantly different between the two phenotypic disease group (P&gt;0.05 for all parameters). (Fig 1, top panels). CALR vs JAK2 ET Exploring symptoms for CALR vs JAK2 ET: 45 patients were included; 9/16 (56.3%) CALR and 18/29 (62.1%) JAK2 patients were assigned to Rux (p=0.70). 10/16 (62.5%) CALR ET and 19/29 (65.5%) JAK2 ET. Baseline mean total symptom score (TSS) was similar (JAK2 ET: 18.9, SD 18.4 and CALR ET: 18.8, SD 16.99 (p=0. 0.98). All other baseline scores were comparable in this intolerant/ refractory population (p&gt;0.05 for all. Concerning change at 12 months, mean (SD) change in TSS was -0.5 (SD 10.86) for JAK2 ET vs -2.8 (SD 9.96) for CALR ET (P=0.56). Mean for individual symptom scores at 12 months were also not significantly different between the two phenotypic disease group (P&gt;0.05 for all parameters); the mean change in night sweats approached but did not reach significance similar (JAK2 ET: 0.2 (SD 1.89) and CALR ET: 1.8 (SD 3.07) (p=0. 0.06). (Fig 1, lower panels). Preliminary analysis of the MDASI and EQ5D-5L data at baseline and at 12 months shows similar results and will be presented. Conclusion This first analysis of its kind compared the symptom burden and other parameters of QoL of patients with PV and ET, resistant/intolerant to HC shows that with the exception of pruritus at baseline there were no substantial differences between JAK2 ET or PV. Equally changes in symptom burden across 12 months did not substantially differ between JAK2 ET or PV. A second analysis of JAK2 vs CALR ET also failed to show substantial differences. This data should be expanded in a larger cohort but supports a symptom continuum of JAK2 ET and PV and also JAK2 vs CALR ET. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mead: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Yap: Faron Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Knapper: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Drummond: CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: 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, Speakers Bureau. Mesa: Pharma: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy; Samus: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding. Scherber: Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. McMullin: 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, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: clinical trial support, Research Funding. Harrison: CTI BioPharma: 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, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Promedior: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Galacteo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.