Scherber, Robyn M.

Abstract Purpose: Chronic inflammation is integral to myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) pathogenesis. JAK inhibitors reduce cytokine levels, but not without significant side effects. Nutrition is a low-risk approach to reduce inflammation and ameliorate symptoms in MPN. We performed a randomized, parallel-arm study to determine the feasibility of an education-focused Mediterranean diet intervention among patients with MPN. Experimental Design: We randomly assigned patients with MPN to either a Mediterranean diet or standard U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans (USDA). Groups received equal but separate education with registered dietician counseling and written dietary resources. Patients were prospectively followed for feasibility, adherence, and symptom burden assessments. Biological samples were collected at four timepoints during the 15-week study to explore changes in inflammatory biomarkers and gut microbiome. Results: The Mediterranean diet was as easy to follow for patients with MPN as the standard USDA diet. Approximately 80% of the patients in the Mediterranean diet group achieved a Mediterranean Diet Adherence Score of ≥8 throughout the entire active intervention period, whereas less than 50% of the USDA group achieved a score of ≥8 at any timepoint. Improvement in symptom burden was observed in both diet groups. No significant changes were observed in inflammatory cytokines. The diversity and composition of the gut microbiome remained stable throughout the duration of the intervention. Conclusions: With dietician counseling and written education, patients with MPN can adhere to a Mediterranean eating pattern. Diet interventions may be further developed as a component of MPN care, and potentially incorporated into the management of other hematologic conditions. Significance: Diet is a central tenant of management of chronic conditions characterized by subclinical inflammation, such as cardiovascular disease, but has not entered the treatment algorithm for clonal hematologic disorders. Here, we establish that a Mediterranean diet intervention is feasible in the MPN patient population and can improve symptom burden. These findings warrant large dietary interventions in patients with hematologic disorders to test the impact of diet on clinical outcomes.

Introduction Indolent systemic mastocytosis (ISM) is a rare clonal mast cell disease driven by the KIT D816V mutation in nearly all patients. Patients with ISM can present with debilitating acute and chronic cutaneous, gastrointestinal, neurocognitive, and systemic symptoms caused by the release of inflammatory mediators from abnormal mast cells. In some patients, symptoms are not adequately controlled with best supportive care (BSC) medications. Elenestinib (BLU-263) is a novel, investigational, oral, next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor that potently and selectively inhibits KIT D816V with limited central nervous system penetration and pharmacokinetics (PK) that support once daily dosing. HARBOR (NCT04910685) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 study assessing efficacy and safety of elenestinib in patients with ISM. Methods Eligible adult patients with ISM, confirmed following central review of bone marrow (BM) pathology, clinical, and laboratory findings per World Health Organization criteria and a moderate-to-severe symptom score based on minimum mean total symptom score (TSS) of the ISM-Symptom Assessment Form (ISM-SAF©2018), were stratified by baseline serum tryptase (<20 ng/mL vs ≥20 ng/mL) and randomly assigned 3:1 to elenestinib 25 mg, 50 mg, or 100 mg once daily + BSC (“elenestinib”) or placebo + BSC (“placebo”). The primary objective of Part 1 was to determine the recommended dose based on safety, PK, and pharmacodynamics. Secondary endpoints included changes in biomarkers of disease burden (serum tryptase, KIT D816V variant allele fraction [VAF], and BM mast cells) and ISM-SAF TSS. Three additional open-label PK groups enrolled patients at 50 mg, 75 mg, and 100 mg to further characterize PK and safety. Results As of data cutoff on July 3, 2023, a total of 122 patients with ISM have received their assigned treatment in Part 1 of the study; 39 were blinded and randomized to elenestinib or placebo, and 83 were treated with open-label elenestinib in the PK groups (21 patients at 50 mg, 34 patients at 75 mg, and 28 patients at 100 mg). Baseline demographics were similar to those reported for the general ISM population. After 12 weeks of therapy, symptom improvement was observed for all dose cohorts, and symptom reduction by TSS was greater for patients on elenestinib versus placebo in the blinded portion of Part 1. Patients receiving elenestinib at 25 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg doses showed reduction (mean percent) from baseline for tryptase (-15.4%, -50.9%, and -68.4% vs 3.3%, respectively) and KIT D816VVAF (-37.5%, -70.3%, and -77.0% vs -2.5%, respectively) as compared to placebo. Similar reductions in TSS and disease-related biomarkers were observed in the open-label PK cohorts. After a median treatment duration of 35.3 weeks, elenestinib was well-tolerated at all dose levels. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events and no treatment-related adverse events that led to drug discontinuation. Conclusion Elenestinib at all tested doses demonstrated beneficial effects on disease-related symptoms and biomarkers of mast cell burden in this large and maturing cohort of patients with ISM with a moderate-to-severe symptom burden. Elenestinib was well tolerated across all dose levels with a promising early benefit-risk profile in ISM. These preliminary findings will inform dosing for the planned Part 2 of HARBOR, which will examine elenestinib versus placebo in a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled setting.

e19078 Background: Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), including polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and myelofibrosis (MF), experience chronic disease-related symptoms. Surveying these patients while incorporating the MPN-Symptom Assessment Form (SAF) gains valuable insight. Independent surveys evaluating symptoms among MPN patients have seen disproportionate participation among females compared to males (upwards of 4:1). Though the general MPN patient population is roughly gender balanced, epidemiological studies show the occurrence of MPN types differ between men and women (MPN [%male]: PV [65%], ET [33%], MF [50%]. Mehta, et al. Leuk & Lymph 2014). In-clinic evaluations and international MPN surveys of disease-related symptoms suggest women report higher symptom burden on average compared to men, despite MPN type [Emanuel, et al. JCO 2012. Geyer, et al. Haematol 2017]. Further, a recent study across cancer trials showed women had a 34% increased risk of reporting severe symptoms [Unger, et al. JCO 2022]. This study aimed to evaluate gender imbalance in survey participation among MPN patient surveys and investigate its potential to overestimate symptom burden if gender is ignored. Methods: Five anonymous web-based surveys were used to assess the impact of disproportionate gender participation. The MPN-10 assessing the 10 most clinically meaningful SAF items was present in these surveys and generated the Total Symptom Score (TSS). Survey responses with no self-reported gender or ≥5 missing MPN-10 symptoms were excluded. Raking weights based on expected MPN population were applied at the survey- and MPN type-level. Relative bias of mean TSS was calculated to evaluate over- and underestimation due to this participation imbalance. Relative bias <5% is commonly acceptable. Results: There were 4962 survey participants total and 74% were female (Table). Epidemiologically expected gender frequency by MPN type was not seen (MPN [%male]: PV [31%], ET [15%], MF [37%]). The gender participation imbalance accounted for a 3.1% overestimation of overall TSS. This also resulted in a 6.8% underestimation of the mean difference in TSS between genders, across MPNs. Conclusions: Overall bias due to gender participation imbalance was relatively low. However, analyses considering gender differences were more impacted. Anonymous surveys should seek to reduce participation bias during the survey design phase. More research is needed to evaluate gender and other participation biases in surveys across cancer domains.[Table: see text]

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.