McMullin, Mary Frances

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>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>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>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>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.

e19040 Background: Clinical trials investigating JAK1/JAK2 inhibitors for myelofibrosis (MF) subjects have measured symptom improvement as a minimum 50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS) at the end of a 24-week treatment period. This landmark analysis is based on post-baseline score changes from Weeks 21 (W21) to 24 and requires vastly different absolute TSS improvements for patients with very high or low baseline (BL) TSS to reach responder status. A phase 3 clinical study, SIMPLIFY-1, randomized 432 intermediate and high risk JAK inhibitor (JAKi) naive MF patients 1:1 to momelotinib (MMB) or ruxolitinib (RUX). Non-inferiority on the MPN-SAF TSS response rate endpoint at W24 was not met (MMB: 28% vs RUX: 42%); however, improvement in each of the 7 TSS items was similar for MMB vs RUX. To understand the discrepancy, we applied item analysis and mixed effect models for repeated measures (MMRM) to SIMPLIFY-1. Methods: Analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in a symptomatic subset (selected as subjects with BL TSS ≥ 10). The distributions of TSS items were examined at BL and shift in scores at W24 (health state shifts) were assessed. GEE models were used to estimate item-level odds ratios using multiple predictive imputations for missing data. MMRM compared mean change in TSS from BL to W24 using data from all visits. The meaningful change threshold (MCT) was determined using Patient Global Impression of Change. Results: BL scores across items were heterogenous in the MMB and RUX groups; the proportion of subjects with no or mild symptoms (0–3 on a 0-10 point scale) ranged from 44% (tiredness) to 81% (itching). Distributions of BL scores were different across arms with 6 out of 7 items in the MMB arm reporting more severe or very severe symptoms (scores of 7-10) at BL. Despite the imbalance in BL scores, item-level health state shifts showed similar improvements for MMB and RUX. Categorical responder analysis showed no significant differences on any items. Odds ratios for each between-group comparison ranged from 0.74 to 1.20. MMRM mean TSS change at W24 was 6.35 (MMB) vs 7.87 (RUX) in the ITT and 8.80 (MMB) vs 10.46 (RUX) in the symptomatic subset. Mean TSS were near the within-subject MCT of 8 points in the ITT and exceeded the MCT in the symptomatic subset. The between-group difference was 1.52 (95% CI: (0.196, 2.847)) in the ITT and 1.67 (95% CI: -0.134, 3.468) in the symptomatic subset. Conclusions: Comparable item health state shifts at W24 and similar improvements in mean TSS as shown by MMRM, with a minimal between-group difference of 1.52 on the 70 point scale in context of an 8-point MCT suggest MMB provides clinically relevant and comparable symptom improvements to RUX; these analyses require further validation in independent data sets. Imbalance in BL symptom scores in MMB subjects may have contributed to the inability to demonstrate non-inferiority in TSS response rate at W24. Clinical trial information: NCT01969838.

AbstractDespite the identification of acquired genetic mutations associated with Myeloproliferative Neoplasms (MPNs) there is a paucity of information relating to modifiable risk factors that may lead to these mutations. The MOSAICC Study was an exploratory case‐control study of polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and Myelofibrosis (MF). MPN patients and population controls (identified by General Practitioners) and non‐blood relative/friend controls were recruited from 2 large UK centers. Participants completed a telephone‐based questionnaire analyzed by unconditional logistic regression analysis adjusting for potential confounders. Risk factors for MPNs identified included increasing childhood household density [odds ratio (OR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16–5.62], low childhood socioeconomic status (OR 2.30, 95%CI 1.02–5.18) and high pack years smoking (OR 2.19, 95%CI 1.03–4.66) and current smoking restricted to JAK2 positive PV cases (OR 3.73, 95%CI 1.06–13.15). Obesity was linked with ET (OR 2.59, 95%CI 1.02–6.58) confirming results in previous cohort studies. Receipt of multiple CT scans was associated with a strongly increased risk of MPN although with wide confidence intervals (OR 5.38, 95%CI 1.67–17.3). Alcohol intake was inversely associated with risk of PV (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.19–0.92) and ET (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.24–0.98). The associations with childhood household density, high pack years smoking and alcohol were also seen in multivariate analysis. This is the largest case control study in MPNs to date and confirms the previously reported associations with obesity and cigarette smoking from cohort studies in addition to novel associations. In particular, the role of smoking and JAK2 mutation cases merits further evaluation.

Abstract Introduction Individuals with the Philadelphia chromosome negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) have previously been shown to experience symptoms in excess to age and comorbidity matched peers. Although numerous assessments of symptom burden and quality of life have been utilized among MPN populations, including the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS¨) fatigue scale, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym) and the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score (MPN-10), there are currently no validated assessments of overall health. Developed by the EuroQol Group to assess heath status, the EQ-5D is an internationally validated self-assessment which may be useful in the assessment of health state among MPN patients (Annals of Medicine, 2001. 33:337-43). Methods The EQ-5D evaluates five dimensions of mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression, on a scale from no problems to extreme problems and assesses patient reported health state via a numerical visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 100. The health state score is a composite score of these items ranging from 0 to 1.0, with higher scores indicating an improved health state. EQ-5D survey participants were essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia (PV) patients participating in the MAJIC United Kingdom (UK) trial. The MAJIC trial is a randomized, phase II study of best available therapy versus JAK inhibition in individuals with PV or ET who have been resistant or intolerant of cytoreduction with hydroxyurea /hydroxycarbamide. This study was one of the first Trials Acceleration Programme (TAP) trials and is funded by Leukaemia Lymphoma Research, with drug supplied by Novartis. Only baseline EQ-5D assessments taken at study enrollment were included in this analysis. Comparative analysis was preformed using the MPN-10 (J Clin Oncol.2012. 30:4098-103). Results: Participant Demographics: Sixty six patients with ET and 55 patients with PV completed the EQ-5D questionnaire. Median respondent age was 65 years old and half of respondents were female (54%). Average MPN duration was 10 years for ET and 9.2 years for PV. EQ-5D Scoring: Severe to extreme difficulties in the items of mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression were common (Table 1).Patients with PV tended to have higher proportion of patients with severe to extreme difficulties in individual disease dimensions, higher VAS score, and worsened health state compared to their essential thrombocythemia counterparts, although these effects were not significant. Average VAS health score was 70.4 (+21.2) for ET and 66.5 (+19.6). When evaluating the health state composite score, the mean ET score was 0.74 (+0.32) and mean PV score was 0.66 (+0.28). EQ-5D Validation: The EQ-5D had excellent internal consistency (CronbachÕs alpha=0.87) and strong internal correlation. When evaluating external validity, strong correlations existed between the EQ-5D and the MPN-SAF TSS scales for dimensions of mobility, usual activities, pain and overall health state (many items with r >0.5 and p<0.001). Conclusions: The EQ-5D is a valid and accurate instrument for the brief assessment of health state among MPN patients. This instrument demonstrates excellent clinical utility in a large clinical study cohort and can be used in both clinical practice and trial settings. When comparing EQ-5D health state scores, ET and PV patients had worsened health than the general UK population age 60 to 69 (0.774; Med Decis Making. 2011.31(6)800-4), but similar health to individuals with other malignancies including breast cancer (0.760), prostate cancer (0.743), and lung cancer (0.689). Disclosures Mesa: NS Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Harrison:CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

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

Abstract Background: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) including polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and myelofibrosis (MF) are clonal hemopathies characterized by burdensome symptom profiles and impaired quality of life. Treatments include pharmacologic approaches, phlebotomy, and bone marrow transplant. Outcome studies have historically focused on hematologic improvement and survival benefit. Few prospective studies have evaluated patient-reported symptoms and quality of life outcomes after standard therapy. The Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Quality of Life (MPN-QOL) Study Group aims to objectively quantify symptomatic response to standard treatments. Here we provide updated results for the prospective MPN Experimental Assessment of Symptoms by Utilizing Repetitive Evaluation (MEASURE) trial. Methods: The MEASURE trial is a prospective international cohort study evaluating responsiveness of the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score (MPN-SAF TSS or MPN-10) in an anticipated 480 ET, PV, and MF patients receiving non-experimental medical therapy and/or phlebotomy. Patients complete the MPN-SAF TSS (JCO 2012) for seven consecutive days at enrollment then again for seven days between 90 days and six months later. Patients also complete the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) instruments at enrollment and on the first day of the second assessment. Physicians report demographic, laboratory, and clinical data. Results: Demographics To date, 340 patients have enrolled and 270 have completed both study visits. Participants include ET (60%), PV (29%), and MF (12%; including 68% primary MF, 12% post-ET, 20% post-PV) patients. Enrolled patients are 51% male. The most common therapies received prior to enrollment were aspirin (34%), phlebotomy (15%), hydroxyurea (14%), and warfarin/clopidogrel/anticoagulation (6%). The most common current MPN therapies were hydroxyurea (67%), aspirin (24%), phlebotomy (9%), and ruxolitinib (8%). Information on mutational analysis was also collected; 77% of patients have a known JAK2 V617F mutation, 3% have an MPL W515 mutation. Symptom Measures On the MPN-SAF TSS, the majority of individual symptoms assessed did not change significantly between the two assessment time points while on standard therapy. Notable exceptions were a significant decrease in weight loss (mean 2.0 vs. 1.7 on a 0=absent to 10=worst imaginable scale, p=0.005) and a significant worsening in quality of life (mean 3.6 vs. 3.8 on a 0=as good as it can be to 10=as bad as it can be scale, p=0.04). No changes were seen in other symptoms including early satiety, abdominal discomfort, night sweats, fatigue, inactivity, poor concentration, bone pain, itching, or fever. Similarly, the cumulative MPN-SAF TSS score remained stable at a mean of 24.4 over the treatment period. These findings were congruent with those observed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 instrument, with no significant changes seen in emotional, physical, role, cognitive, or social functioning. Finally, the MDASI also revealed a lack of change in either symptom severity (mean 2.7) or symptom distress (mean 3.0) scores, which remained stable over the study period. Discussion: Myeloproliferative neoplasms are associated with burdensome symptoms that significantly compromise quality of life. To date, no studies have quantified symptomatic response to standard-of-care treatments. Overall, results from the MEASURE study suggest that standard treatments have limited systematic impact on patient symptomatology over time, with no improvements in overall quality of life. However, we note the relatively low proportion of patients in this cohort treated with ruxolitinib, which has been shown previously to improve symptom burden, and this may have impacted the symptom responses seen in the group as whole; detailed responses by treatment and MPN subtype will be presented. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Dueck: Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment. Ross:BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding. Tam:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Travel funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other: Travel funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other: Travel funding. Radia:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Blueprint: Consultancy. Mesa:UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Celgene: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) suffer from difficult MPN associated symptoms which impact quality of life (QoL). The impact of initial cytoreduction on ET/PV symptoms, resulting toxicity and QoL have not been prospectively studied. Methods: MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) randomized 168 therapy-naive (hydroxyurea [HU] <3 mo) high risk ET/PV pts (<5 years of disease) to response adjusted pegylated interferon alpha 2a (PEG) or HU. MPN symptoms, in depth toxicity assessment, and QoL were measured by two symptom instruments (MPN-SAF, EORTC QLQ-C30: baseline,3, 6, 9, and 12 mo) and toxicity questions. Blinded response review by European Leukemia Net (ELN) hematological responses (HR) was conducted at 12 months. Individual time point and longitudinal group comparisons were based on mixed models adjusting for age. Results: Patients: Of 168 randomized pts (86 HU, 82 PEG), 164 (98%) completed the survey package at baseline and 151 (HU 83%; PEG 98%) completed at least 1 survey during treatment. Median age was 61 (range 18-87) with 70 (42%) females; 81 (48%) / 87 (52%) with ET / PV; 46 (27%) had a history of a thrombosis. 119 (71%) received prior HU (up to 3 months). Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms with the exception of age (median HU 63 vs. PEG 60 yrs; p=0.02). Baseline Symptom Burden /QoL: Mean MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS), scale 0 [absent]-100 [worst imaginable] was 15.8 (SD 12.6; range 0-62.0) with means of 15.1 (SD 12.6) / 16.5 (SD 12.6) for ET / PV which were slightly lower than reported means of a previous cohort receiving any line of treatment (Scherber RM, JCO 2012). Median number of moderate (defined as score >=3) symptoms in ET patients was 3.0 and PV 4.0. Most common moderate symptoms were fatigue (65.9%), insomnia (37.2%), numbness (33.5%) , itching (29.9%), dizziness (27.4%), early satiety (26.8%) , headache (23.2%), sad mood (23.2%), inactivity (22%), concentration (20.7%). 50.6% of patients had one or more symptom with a score >=6. Mean QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL (GHS/QoL) was 70.8 (SD 21.9) - comparable to a general population (mean 71.2, SD 22.4) and better than a general cancer population (mean 61.3, SD 24.2; QLQ-C30 Reference Manual 2008). At baseline, TSS, symptoms, and QoL were similar between treatment arms. In patients with TSS >20 at baseline (highly symptomatic, n=50; ET:20, PV:30), median TSS was 28.0 (range 20.0 to 62.0); the highest scored symptom was fatigue (median=7.0), itching (median=4.5) and insomnia (median=4.0). Impact of Therapy on Symptom Burden/QoL: On HU, pts experienced worsening QoL (physical, cognitive functioning, HRQoL) and some persistent or transient worsened symptoms (inactivity, concentration (p<0.05) (Table 1)). On PEG, pts experienced worsening of fever, dyspnea, appetite loss and PEG-related symptoms including flu-like symptoms, injection site irritation, blurry vision, and visual changes (all p<0.05), but not sad mood (not corrected for antidepressants). In comparing arms, change in TSS significantly differed (p=0.01) between arms with increasing symptoms on HU vs PEG at 3 and 6 mo, but lower symptom burden at 9 and 12 mos (Figure 1). In highly symptomatic pts (with a baseline TSS > 20, n=50), improvements in weight loss, abdominal discomfort, fatigue, itching, fever, early satiety (12 m.) were observed in pts on HU. For PEG, in highly symptomatic pts, improvements were observed for overall TSS score, fatigue, inactivity, night sweats, and itching (with similar toxicities to all PEG patients). ELN Response and Symptom Burden/QoL: Among the 133 pts with 12-mo symptom data, complete hematologic response (CHR) rate was 43%. Inactivity and sad mood were worse in those patient achieving a CHR (inactivity: CHR worsening 0.68 vs PHR/NR better 0.26; p=0.03; sad mood: CHR worsening 0.67 vs PHR/NR better 0.67, p=0.002)). These latter changes were not related to higher doses utilized (in either arm), suggesting obtaining CHR may have negative effects on patient symptoms. Conclusions:In pts with a significant baseline MPN symptom burden, cytoreductive therapy has both a beneficial impact on baseline MPN symptom burden but also leads to therapy associated toxicity, although different patterns of efficacy and toxicity between HU and PEG. Achievement of a CHR in PV/ET may be associated with higher rates of drug related toxicities, and the value of achieving CHR may need further validation. Disclosures Mesa: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Merck: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: 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; Roche: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Rambaldi:Omeros: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Consultancy; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy. Yacoub:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Cara Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Ardelyx, INC.: Equity Ownership; Inycte: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Dynavax: Equity Ownership. Harrison:Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mead:Elstar: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Evotek: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Kessler:Sangamo: Research Funding; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dimension Advisory boards: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DSMB: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Biomarin: Research Funding. Kremyanskaya:Incyte: Research Funding. Rampal:Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Stemline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Hoffman:Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Formation Biologics: Research Funding; Summer Road: Research Funding. Dueck:Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment.

Abstract Background Myelofibrosis (MF) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) characterised by the frequent presence of driver mutations in genes causing activation of JAK2 signalling pathways (JAK2, CALR and MPL). Additional mutations affecting epigenetic regulators and splicing machinery are common. Anaemia with RBC-transfusion-dependence is common in patients with advanced myelofibrosis and represents a major unmet need. The RESUME study assessed the rates of RBC-transfusion independence (TI) after therapy with Pomalidomide (POM) vs placebo in persons with MPN-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion dependence. 16% of patients in both the POM and placebo arms became TI. Aims The genetic landscape of strictly confirmed transfusion dependent MF is not fully characterised. Our aim was to analyse the genetics of transfusion-dependent myelofibrosis patients in the RESUME trial and correlate with clinical characteristics, outcome and therapy response. Methods DNA samples were available from 207 of 252 patients and analysed by targeted re-sequencing using a Fluidigm Access Array gene panel followed by next generation sequencing. The panel included JAK2, CALR, MPL, TET2, ASXL1, EZH2, DNMT3A, IDH1/2, CBL, IKZF1, U2AF1, CHEK2, TP53, SF3B1, SRSF2, SH2B3, BARD1, DAP3, HRAS, IRF4, KRAS, KIT, Mir662, NFE2, POLG, SCRIB, SETBP1, TCF12 and VPS45. Results 97% (95-99%) of subjects had a mutation in ≥1 targeted gene. 2 mutations were detected in 41% (34-48%) and ≥3 in 27% (21-33%). 7 had no detectable mutation. Mutations in JAK2V617F, CALR and MPL were identified in 66% (59-72%), 14% (8-19%) and 7% (4-11%) of subjects (Figure 1), with no driver mutation in 27 patients (13%; 9-18%) (triple-negative). 68% (61-74%) had additional non-driver mutations. 42% (35-48%) (N=86) had spliceosome mutations (U2AF1 [21%]; SF3B1 [11%]; SRSF2 [8%]; ZRSR2; [6%]). More spliceosome mutations were detected in men than women (47% [39-55%] vs 27% [15-40%]; p=0.009). Spliceosome mutations were mutually exclusive in 83 subjects and were less common in subjects with prior polycythaemia vera (17% [5-37%]) compared with prior essential thrombocythaemia (39% [22-58%]) and primary MF (46% [38-54%]; p=0.024). Mutations in epigenetic regulators (ASXL1, 28%; TET2, 8%; DNMT3A 5%; EZH2 4%) were detected at similar rates to those previously reported. High molecular risk (HMR) mutations (ASXL1, EZH2, IDH1/2, SRSF2) were detected in 36% [29-43%] of subjects. Only 10 of 105 subjects with an epigenetic regulator gene mutation had ≥1 related mutation. Subjects with JAK2V617F were significantly more likely than subjects with a CALR mutation to have: (1) ≥1 additional mutation (72% [64-79%] vs. 35% [18-54%], p=0.0001); (2) a spliceosome mutation (44% [36-53%] vs. 17% [6-36%], p=0.07), in particular a U2AF1 mutation (24% [17-32%] vs. 0%; p=0.004) and (3) a HMR mutation (38% [30-47%] vs. 21% [8-40%]; p=0.07). Survival at 1.5 years was 62% (55-67%) and was not significantly associated with the presence or number of mutations in this uniformly high-risk cohort. Survival in subjects without an SF3B1 mutation was better than those SF3B1-mutated (80% [56-91%]) vs. 59% [52-65%]; p=0.07). Driver mutation status did not influence the probability of achieving red blood cell (RBC) TI, regardless of therapy. Additional non-driver mutations were more often detected in those failing to achieve RBC-TI than those achieving RBC-TI (70% [63-77%] vs 56% [40-71%], p=0.07). Furthermore, those with additional non-driver mutations were less likely to achieve ≥50% reduction in RBC transfusions (24% [17-32%] vs. 39% [27-51%]; p=0.03). A significant correlation persisted in subjects receiving POM but not in those receiving placebo. There was also a significant correlation between U2AF1 mutations and RBC-TI in POM treated subjects compared with controls; U2AF1-mutated subjects were less likely to achieve RBC-TI (3% [1, 17%]) than U2AF1-unmutated subjects (25% [17, 34%], p=0.008). No other mutations were significantly correlated with response. Conclusion We found a high incidence of spliceosome mutations in persons with MPN-associated MF and RBC-transfusion-dependence. Mutation of U2AF1 correlated with response in subjects receiving POM but not in those receiving placebo. Incorporation of mutation profiling into clinical trial design may help to inform subgroups of patients that may benefit from the intervention. Disclosures Devos: Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Gisslinger:Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kiladjian:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mesa:Celgene: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Pfizer: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Ribrag:argenX: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel; NanoString Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; pharmamar: Other: travel; Infinity: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Other: travel; epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Schiller:Celator/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Vannucchi:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ITALFARMACO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Reiser:Celgene: Employment. Zhong:Celgene: Employment. Mead:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Elstar: Research Funding; Evotek: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction HU is the treatment of choice for patients (pts) with high risk ET/PV, however, PEG has been proposed as an alternative option due to its proposed potential to modify disease course. An interim analysis of MPN-RC 112 (Blood 2016 128:479;) did not reveal a difference in PR/CR rates between HU and PEG therapy after 12 months in the first evaluable 75 pts treated. Here we present the results and long-term follow-up of all pts participating in this pivotal study [NCT01259856]. Methods MPN-RC 112 was a randomized, open label, phase 3 clinical trial comparing HU and PEG in pts with high risk ET/PV. Pts were treated for up to 12 months to achieve PR or CR (ELN/IWG-MRT response criteria). Pts who achieved a PR/CR continued therapy for up to a maximum of 6 years. Minimum follow up was 1 year from the time the last pt was randomized. The primary objective was to compare the CR rate following HU vs. PEG at 12 months with 3 month confirmation. Secondary objectives included a comparison of toxicity and tolerability; PR rates; incidence of specific pre-defined toxicities and tolerance to therapy; impact of therapy on key biomarkers; survival and incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome, myelofibrosis, or leukemic transformation; and incidence of major cardiovascular events. Bone marrow pathologic responses were evaluated by central blinded expert review at baseline, 12, 24 months and end of study. Results The study accrued 168 pts; 86 were randomized to HU and 82 to PEG. A summary of pt baseline characteristics by treatment arm is shown in Table 1 and were well balanced between the treatment arms except for median age which was higher in the HU arm (p=0.02). Median duration of follow up was 89.9 weeks (range, 0 to 292.3) and the median treatment duration was 86.0 weeks (range, 0 to 287.3). At 12 months, the overall response rate (ORR= PR+CR) was 69.8% and 78% for HU and PEG, respectively (p=0.22). Figure 1 shows the distribution of responses stratified by disease type. At 24 months, 59 pts were on treatment with an ORR of 22/25 (88%) for HU and 31/34 (91%) for PEG. When considering all 106 pts who were eligible to receive treatment for 24 months (due to study closure), the ORR was 22/54 (40.7%, PR: 11 (20.4%), CR: 11 (20.4%)) for HU and 31/52 (59.6%, (PR: 15 (28.9%), CR: 16 (30.8%)) for PEG, p=0.04. Best ORR at any time on study was seen in 70.9% and 81.7% of HU and PEG treated pts, respectively, p=0.10. The median maximum change from baseline spleen volume was -6% (-100.0 - +53.8) in 112 evaluable pts and was similar between arms, p=0.99. Bone marrow morphologic responses are shown in Table 2 and the best response (CR) seen at any time on study for ET treated with HU was 52% (12/23) vs PEG 32% (8/25) and for PV treated with HU 19% (6/31) vs PEG 6% (2/34). Cytogenetic analyses at diagnosis were available in 86% (144/168). An abnormal karyotype was seen in 15% (22/144). Five PV and one ET pt lost their chromosomal abnormalities: 3 after one year (HU=1, PEG=2) and three after two years of therapy (HU=2, PEG=1). AE information is available for 162 pts (HU: 80; PEG: 82) (Table 3). Six pts randomized to HU never received treatment due to study withdrawal prior to initiation of treatment. Sixty pts had a grade 3 or higher event [HU: 22 (27.5%) and PEG: 38 (46.3%)]. 28 PV pts had a grade 3/4 [HU: 10 (24.4%) and PEG: 18 (41.9%)]. Four pts had a grade 4/5 event [HU: 3 (7.3%) and PEG: 1 (2.3%)]. 32 ET pts had a grade 3/4 [HU:12 (30.8%) and PEG:20 (51.3%)]. Two pts had a grade 4/5 event [HU:1 (2.6%), PEG:1 (2.6%)]. Additional outcomes of interest on study include one death attributed to new diagnosis of lung cancer (HU:1), progression to myelofibrosis (HU:1), vertebral artery occlusion (HU:1), and cerebral vascular accident (PEG:1). Reasons for study discontinuation are shown in Table 4. The effect of therapy on symptom burden and quality of life will be presented in a companion abstract (Mesa et al). The impact of mutation status on therapeutic outcome as well as the molecular responses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion The final analysis of MPN-RC 112 revealed that the CR rates in pts with high risk ET/PV treated with PEG and HU at 12 and 24 months were similar. PEG was associated with a higher rate of grade 3/4 toxicity. Each drug appeared equally capable of modifying the natural history of high risk ET/PV based upon their effects on spleen size, karyotypic abnormalities, histopathological parameters and the low incidence of thrombotic complications and disease evolution in both arms. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Novartis: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Rambaldi:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Harrison:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mead:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Elstar: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy; Evotek: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy. Kessler:Genentech: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biomarin: Research Funding; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DSMB: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dimension Advisory boards: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kremyanskaya:Incyte: Research Funding. Rampal:Stemline: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Mesa:CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. Dueck:Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment. Hoffman:Incyte: Research Funding; Formation Biologics: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Summer Road: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Severe anemia with RBC-transfusion-dependence is common in persons with advanced MPN-associated myelofibrosis. Pomalidomide, an immune-modulating drug with pleiotrophic bone marrow effects, improved anemia in several phase 2 studies. Method Phase 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pomalidomide (0.5 mg/d) in subjects with MPN-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion-dependence. The primary endpoint was RBC-transfusion-independence. Criteria for RBC-transfusion-dependence and -independence were based on results of an expert consensus panel RAND-Delphi study. Subjects 252 subjects were randomized 2:1 to receive pomalidomide or placebo with stratifications for age, type of myelofibrosis, and intensity of RBC-transfusions. Median age was 70 y. 75% had primary myelofibrosis. Median units (U) RBC-transfusions/28 d pre-randomization was 3 (range, 2-13). Results Response rates in the cohorts were similar (16% [95% CI, 11-23%] vs 16% [8-26%]), as were response durations. However, median time to response for pomalidomide was 7 w (range, 0-20 w) vs only 2 w (range, 0-15 w) for placebo (p=0.22). Response in both cohorts was more common in subjects with ≤4 vs >4 U RBC/28 d pre-randomization (OR=3.1 [p=0.09] and OR=8.6 [p=0.06]). However, other variables associated with response to pomalidomide: age ≤65 vs >65 y (OR=2.4; p=0.07) and primary myelofibrosis vs other (OR=2.6; p=0.14) and response to placebo: (WBC >25 vs ≤25 x10E9/L; OR=5.0; p=0.08) and interval from diagnosis to randomization >2 vs ≤2 y (OR=5.0; p=0.04) differed. These differences would not be expected were response to pomalidomide identical to response to placebo. Also, a center effect was found in placebo but not pomalidomide responders, which persisted after adjusting for predictive associations. Several pomalidomide responders lost response when therapy was stopped but regained it when pomalidomide was re-started. No pre-randomization therapy (iron-chelation, hydroxyurea, busulfan, folate) was consistently correlated with response to placebo, and durations of RBC-transfusion-dependence pre-randomization were similar between the cohorts. In contrast, platelet response rates, a 2̍° endpoint, were significantly different between the cohorts: pomalidomide, 22% (95% CI, 11-35%) vsplacebo, 0 (0-12%; p=0.006). Platelet response was not correlated with RBC-transfusion-independence response. Conclusion There was no significant difference in rate or duration of RBC-transfusion-independence response to pomalidomide vsplacebo despite using what were thought to be sensitive and specific entry- and response-criteria. Unexpectedly, however, most variables associated with response to pomalidomide and placebo differed between the cohorts, as did distribution of times to response. These data suggest responses to pomalidomide and placebo differ but were not distinguished by our response-criteria. Pomalidomide appears to reverse RBC transfusion dependence in some persons with MPN associated MF. However, additional research designs are needed to study this impression. This abstract is presented on behalf of all RESUME Investigators. Study registration: NCT01178281. Disclosures: Cervantes: Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gisslinger:AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria; Novartis: Advisory Board Meeting, Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Advisory Board Meeting, Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria; Shire: Advisory Board Meeting, Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria; Celgene: Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria; Janssen: Advisory Board Meeting, Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria. Gupta:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Grant support through institution Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Grant support through institution, Grant support through institution Other, Honoraria. Harrison:SBio: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; YM Bioscience: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Schiller:Celgene: Research Funding. Mesa:Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.