Rambaldi, Alessandro

Introduction: Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is an expected and potentially life-threatening toxicity associated with CAR T cell therapy. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121), a BCMA-directed CAR T cell therapy, demonstrated promising efficacy in triple-class exposed and highly refractory patients with multiple myeloma in the pivotal phase 2 KarMMa study, with an overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, median duration of response, and median progression-free survival of 73%, 33%, 10.7 months, and 8.8 months, respectively, across the target dose levels of 150−450 × 106 CAR+ T cells, and 82%, 39%, 11.3 months, and 12.1 months at the highest target dose of 450 × 106 CAR+ T cells (Munshi et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38[suppl, abstr]:8503). Identifying the patterns of CRS evolution, associations with baseline patient and disease characteristics, and the impact of interventions are key to understanding this adverse event in the context of ide-cel. In addition, a better understanding of lower-grade CRS, including maximum grade 1 events, is important as these are easier to manage and represent a lower burden on the healthcare system. We report results of an examination of CRS events in the KarMMa study. Methods: Patients in the KarMMa trial (NCT03361748) were required to have ≥3 prior regimens (including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody) and were refractory to their last regimen per International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Patients received ide-cel target doses of 150, 300, or 450 × 106 CAR+ T cells 2 days after lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 plus fludarabine 30 mg/m2 daily for 3 days. The primary endpoint was ORR. The key secondary endpoint was CR rate; other secondary endpoints included safety. CRS was graded according to criteria in Lee et al. (Blood. 2014;124:188). Patient characteristics and CRS management were examined by CRS grade to identify variables associated with higher-grade CRS. Management of CRS included tocilizumab 8 mg/kg with the addition of corticosteroids and other agents as needed. Results: Of 128 patients treated with ide-cel, 107 (84%) experienced CRS; 61 patients (48%) had maximum grade 1 and 46 (36%) had maximum grade ≥2 CRS (grade 2, n=39; grade 3, n=5; grade 4, n=1; and grade 5, n=1). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced among patients with maximum grade 1 and grade ≥2 (Table). Thirty patients (65%) with maximum grade ≥2 CRS progressed from initial grade 1 events, whereas 16 (35%) had initial grade ≥2. Median time to onset of CRS was the same (1 day) regardless of initial or maximum grade (Table). Median duration was 5.0 days in patients with maximum grade 1, 5.5 days in patients with maximum grade 2, and 11.0 days in patients with maximum grade ≥3 CRS. Median duration was shorter in patients with maximum grade 1 CRS than in those with initial grade 1 events that progressed to grade ≥2 (5.0 days vs 7.0 days). Most patients (83%) with maximum grade ≥2 CRS received at least 1 dose of tocilizumab and approximately one-third (35%) received corticosteroids, compared with 48% and 5%, respectively, of patients with maximum grade 1 CRS. A higher percentage of patients with initial grade ≥2 vs initial grade 1 CRS received multiple doses of tocilizumab (50% vs 37%) or at least 1 dose of corticosteroids (50% vs 27%). Conclusions: Almost half of the patients treated with ide-cel experienced maximum grade 1 CRS. Baseline disease and patient characteristics were similar among patients experiencing grade 1 and higher-grade CRS events. CRS was effectively managed with tocilizumab and corticosteroids, and more frequent use of these interventions in patients with grade ≥2 CRS was not associated with prolonged CRS events. The time to onset of CRS was predictable and equivalent in patients with maximum grade 1 and higher-grade CRS events. Duration of CRS was similar in patients with maximum grade 1 and 2 but was longer in patients with maximum grade ≥3 CRS. These data demonstrate the feasible management of CRS and thus confirm the tolerability of ide-cel in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Table 1 Disclosures Kansagra: Karyopharm: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Lin:Novartis: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding. Berdeja:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellularity: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Bluebird: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Kesios: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Constellation: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; EMD Sorono: Research Funding; Vivolux: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; CURIS: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding. Shah:GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy. Yakoub-Agha:Celgene: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other: travel support; Janssen: Honoraria. Einsele:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rambaldi:BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); University of Milan: Current Employment; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Received travel support., Research Funding; Omeros: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Advisory board and speaker fees from Pfizer.; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Research grant from Amgen Inc.; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Astellas: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support from Gilead.. Truppel-Hartmann:bluebird bio, Inc: Current Employment, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); F. Hoffmann La Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Rowe:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Wang:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Agarwal:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Campbell:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lonial:Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy.

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

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 Introduction B progenitor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) is a leading cause of childhood cancer death. Many chimeric genes have been identified and led to a refined classification of B-ALL and tailored therapies. Still, up to 30% of B-ALL cannot be classified into established subtypes, and the outcome for many is poor. Methods To identify novel subtypes of B-ALL, we performed integrative genomic analysis including transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq) of 1,988 cases from St. Jude, Children's Oncology Group and adult cooperative group studies and analyzed chromosomal rearrangements, gene-expression profiles (GEP), somatic mutations and chromosome-level copy-number alterations. Cases lacking known or putative subtype-defining alterations underwent whole genome sequencing. Effects on proliferation and transformation of novel lesions were assessed by retroviral expression in cell lines and point-mutation knock-in mice using CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing. Results Using integrated genetic alterations and gene expression profiling, we classified 23 B-ALL subtypes (Table and Figure). Three groups included cases with similar GEP as canonical subtypes (ETV6-RUNX1, KMT2A-rearranged, and ZNF384-rearranged), but lacking the expected drivers (e.g., ETV6-RUNX1-like, n=42). Eighteen cases (0.9%) had rearrangements of BCL2, MYC and/or BCL6 showing a distinct GEP; they were mostly adults (n=16) with very poor outcome. These alterations, rarely seen in ALL, are identical to those observed in "double/triple hit" lymphoma, and are of pre-B immunophenotype. Eight cases with tightly clustered GEP comprised a novel subtype defined by IKZF1 N159Y missense mutation. N159Y is in the DNA-binding domain of IKZF1, and is known to perturb IKZF1 function, with distinct nuclear mislocalization and induction of aberrant intercellular adhesion. We identified two subtypes with distinct GEP characterized by PAX5 alterations. One, herein termed PAX5 altered (PAX5alt), comprised 148 (7.4%) cases, was characterized by diverse PAX5 alterations including rearrangements (n=57), sequence mutations (n=46) and/or focal intragenic amplifications (n=8). These PAX5 alterations were found in 73.6% of PAX5alt cases and different alteration types were mutually exclusive. Other PAX5 alterations, including deletions and large-scale amplifications were also assessed using SNP array, but were not enriched in the PAX5alt group. Clinically, PAX5alt pediatric and adult patients had favorable (96.8±3.2%) and intermediate (42.1±10.2%) 5-year overall survival (OS), respectively. The other GEP distinct subtype comprised 44 cases, all with PAX5 P80R missense mutations. In 30 of these cases, PAX5 P80R was homozygous due to deletion of the wild-type (WT) PAX5 allele or copy-neutral loss of heterozygosity. Of the other 14 cases with heterozygous PAX5 P80R mutations, 13 had a second frameshift (n=7), nonsense (n=2) or deleterious missense (n=4) PAX5 mutation. Four of the remaining 1,944 cases also had the PAX5 P80R mutation, but all were heterozygous with preservation of a WT PAX5 allele, consistent with the notion that homozygous or compound heterozygous PAX5 P80R mutation is the hallmark of this subtype. Adult PAX5 P80R cases (n=14) showed better 5-year OS (61.9±13.4%) than those in PAX5alt subtype (42.1±10.2%). To examine the effects of PAX5 P80R on B-cell maturation, WT PAX5, PAX5 P80R, V26G and P34Q were expressed in Pax5-/- lineage-depleted bone marrow cells. Expression of WT PAX5, PAX5 V26G and P34Q resulted in near complete rescue of B cell differentiation; however, expression of PAX5 P80R blocked the differentiation at the pre-pro-B stage of B-cell maturation. Further, Pax5 P80R heterozygous or homozygous mice developed pre-B-ALL with a median latency of 166 and 87 days, respectively, with heterozygous mice acquiring alterations on the second allele. In contrast, Pax5+/- mice, and those harboring G183S mutation observed in familial leukemia, do not spontaneously develop B-ALL. Conclusions These results show the utility of transcriptome sequencing in defining subtypes and founding genetic alterations in B-ALL, provide a revised taxonomy of the disease across the age spectrum, and reinforce the central role of PAX5 as a checkpoint in B lymphoid maturation and leukemogenesis. Disclosures McKay: ImmunoGen Inc.: Employment. Tallman:Orsenix: Other: Advisory board; AROG: Research Funding; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; Cellerant: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Konopleva:Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Relling:Shire Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Mullighan:Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

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 Abstract 277 Background: Current information on the natural history of polycythemia vera (PV) is mostly derived from early studies based on the PV Study Group diagnostic criteria. The World Health Organization (WHO) diagnostic approach to PV is currently the gold standard. The main objective of the current study was to describe survival, disease complication rates and risk factors in WHO-defined PV. Methods: Under the auspices of an International Working Group, seven international centers of excellence for myeloproliferative neoplasms submitted a total of 1,430 patients, locally diagnosed with “WHO-defined PV”. The two principle investigators (AT and TB) reviewed all the cases and selected 1,263 patients who were age 18 years or older, diagnosed after 1970, and whose submitted data included diagnostically essential information. Results I: Presenting Features: Median age was 60 years (range, 18–95; 51% females). The number of patients diagnosed between 1970–1990, 1991–2000, and 2001–2011 were 136 (11%), 337 (27%) and 790 (62%), respectively. Arterial/venous thrombosis history before or at diagnosis was documented in 142/73 and 80/42 patients, respectively. Other features at diagnosis included pruritus (37%), microvascular disturbances (29%), palpable splenomegaly (37%), abnormal karyotype (13%), and leukoerythroblastosis (6%). History of hypertension (45%), hyperlipidemia (17%), diabetes (9%), and tobacco use (15%) was also obtained. Results II: Clinical Course: To date, 228 (18%) deaths, 42 (3%) leukemic progressions, and 101 (8%) fibrotic transformations have been recorded. Post-diagnosis arterial or venous thrombosis occurred in 139 (11%) and 85 (7%) patients, respectively. Cytoreductive therapy had not been used in 342 (27%) patients whereas 154 (12%) patients were exposed to two or more cytoreductive drugs. Results III: Risk Factors: Multivariable analysis identified advanced age, leukocytosis, venous thrombosis history and abnormal karyotype as significant (p<0.01) risk factors for overall survival (OS). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots delineated ages 69 (AUC 0.83) and 59 (AUC 0.61) years and leukocyte count 13 × 109/L (AUC=0.61) as the best discriminant levels in this regard; HR (95% CI) were 11.4 (7.7–16.9) for age ≥70 years, 3.8 (2.6–5.7) for age 60–69 years, and 2.0 (1.5–2.6) for leukocyte count ≥15 × 109/L. Results IV: Risk Stratification: HR-based risk scores were assigned to age ≥70 years (3 points), age 60–69 years (2 points) and leukocyte count ≥15 × 109/L (one point), in order to create four risk groups: low (zero points; n=492; median survival 322 months), intermediate-1 (one or 2 points; n=353; median survival 208 months; HR 3.8, 95% CI 2.5–5.8), intermediate-2 (3 points; n=286; median survival 132 months; HR 10.7, 95% CI 6.9–16.5), and high (4 points; n=56; median survival 90 months; HR 22.7, 95% CI 13.9–37.1) (Figure 1). Similar results were obtained when analysis was restricted to the 1,011 JAK2 mutation-positive patients (Figure 2). The particular risk model was equally robust in predicting leukemia-free survival (p=0.001). Conclusions: Age and leukocyte count matter the most in predicting survival in PV. The current study suggests additional prognostic value from karyotype and venous thrombosis history. Disclosures: Vannucchi: Novartis: Honoraria. Gisslinger:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Austria: Speakers Bureau; AOP-Orphan: Speakers Bureau.

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.

Abstract BACKGROUND. In primary myelofibrosis (PMF), survival from time of diagnosis is predicted by the international prognostic scoring system (IPSS), and from time of referral, by the dynamic IPSS (DIPSS) or DIPSS-plus. JAK2/CALR/MPL mutational status and presence and number of other prognostically-relevant mutations (ASXL1, SRSF2, EZH2, IDH1/2) provide IPSS/DIPSS-plus independent prognostic information. The objective in the current study was to revise IPSS, by including mutation-relevant prognostic information. METHODS. The study included 986 PMF patients divided into learning (n=588) and validation (n=398) cohorts. Previously published methods were used to screen for mutations involving JAK2,MPL, CALR, EZH2, ASXL1, IDH1/2 and SRSF2. The clinical variables assessed were those previously identified as being prognostically-relevant by IPSS or DIPSS-plus. The prognostic model (MIPSS) was developed through a stepwise selection process, based on a z-test of the regression coefficients, and its relative quality was measured by means of the Akaike information criterion. RESULTS. In the Italian learning cohort (n=588),median follow-up was 3.6years (95% CI, 0.03-30.8) for alive patients and 196 (33.3%) deaths and 67 leukemic transformations were documented. IPSS risk distribution was low in 26%, intermediate-1 in 30%, intermediate-2 in 24% and high in 20%. Mutational frequencies were approximately 63% for JAK2, 20% CALR, 6% MPL, 7% EZH2, 22% ASXL1, 2.5% IDH1/2 and 9% SRSF2. Constitutional symptoms were recorded in 28.6% of patients, splenomegaly 75% (18% >10cm from LCM) and grade 3 fibrosis 21%. Overall 252 patients were evaluable for karyotype and abnormalities were detected in 35%, including 9.5% unfavorable. Univariate analysis identified the following risk factors for inferior survival: age >60 years, constitutional symptoms, hemoglobin <100g/L, leukocytes >25x109/L, platelets <200x109/L, circulating blasts 1% or greater, splenomegaly >10cm, grade 3 fibrosis, unfavorable karyotype, triple-negativity for JAK2, MPL and CALR (TN), JAK2 or MPL mutation, and mutations in ASXL1, SRSF2, EZH2 or IDH1/2. In multivariable analysis, age >60 years, constitutional symptoms, hemoglobin <100g/L, platelets <200x109/L, TN, JAK2 or MPL mutation, ASXL1 and SRSF2 mutation remained significant; these variables were subsequently assigned the following HR-weighted adverse points: 1.5, 0.5, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 0.5, 0.5 and 0.5, respectively. Subsequently, four risk groups with no overlap in the 95% CI of their survival curves were delineated (Figure 1A): low (score 0-0.5); Intermediate-1 (score 1-1.5); Intermediate-2 (score 2-3.5); and high (score 4 or greater). The number of patients in each risk category, median survivals and HR and 95% CI values are included in figure 1A. Akaike information criterion indicated that MIPSS performed better than IPSS in predicting survival (1611.6 vs 1649.0). Leukemia-free survival was also predicted by high (p<0.01) and intermediate 1/2 (p<0.01) risk MIPSS. In the Mayo Clinic validation cohort (n=398), median age 63 years; males 64%,median follow-up for alive patients was 7.5 years and 271 (68%) deaths and 51 (13%) leukemic transformations were documented. DIPSS-plus risk distribution was low in 13%, intermediate-1 18%, intermediate-2 37% and high 32%. Mutational frequencies were approximately 51% for JAK2, 30% CALR, 7.5% MPL, 5% EZH2, 36% ASXL1, 5.6% IDH1/2 and 13% SRSF2. MIPSS performed equally well in this cohort, as illustrated in figure 1B, which includes number of patients in each risk category with their median survival and HR and 95% CI values. Leukemia-free survival in the Mayo cohort was also predicted by high (p<0.01) and intermediate-2 (p=0.04) risk MIPSS. Patients in the Mayo cohort were fully annotated for karyotype, which was MIPSS-independent in its prognostic value for both overall (p<0.01) and leukemia-free (p<0.01) survival. CONCLUSIONS. MIPSS addresses the mutation-relevant prognostic information gap in IPSS and performs equally well in the setting of patients seen at time of diagnosis or referral. Karyotype carries MIPSS-independent prognostic value that is recognized in an alternative GIPSS prognostic model (see accompanying ASH 2014 abstract), which complements MIPSS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) suffer from disease related events linked to risk of vascular events, splenomegaly, progression to myelofibrosis/acute leukemia, and disease related symptoms arising from both elevated cytokines and issues of vascular flow. Impact of front line therapy on ET/PV symptoms has not been reported in a systematic fashion. Methods: MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) enrolled cytoreductive therapy naïve (hydroxyurea [HU] <3 mo) pts with high risk ET or PV within 3 years of diagnosis. Pts were randomized (1:1, stratified by ET vs PV) to either response adjusted pegylated interferon alpha 2a (PEG) or HU. MPN symptoms, treatment toxicities, and quality of life (QoL) were measured by the MPN-SAF and EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 mo. PEG related toxicities were assessed with 5 questions on PEG arm only. European Leukemia Net (ELN) complete hematological responses (CHR) at 12 mo were determined by central blinded review. Individual time point and longitudinal group comparisons were based on mixed models adjusting for age. T-tests were used to compare change scores at 12 mo between pts with and without CHR. Results: Patients: MPD-RC 112 enrolled 168 pts from 9/2011 to 7/2016, with 75 pts included in the interim analysis. 73 (97%; HU 37, 95%; PEG 36, 100%) completed surveys at baseline of which 66 (90%; HU 30, 81%; PEG 36, 100%) completed at least 1 survey during treatment. Median age was 60 (range 19-84) with 32 (44%) females; 30 (41%) / 43 (59%) with ET / PV; 19 (26%) had a history of thrombosis; and 16 (22%) had palpable spleen. Baseline characteristics where balanced between arms with the exception of age (median age: HU 66, PEG 54; p<0.001). Baseline Symptom Burden/QoL: Mean MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS, scale 0 [absent]-100 [worst imaginable]) was 15.4 (SD 12.5; range 0-52.2) with means of 12.6 (SD 11.7) / 17.3 (SD 12.7) for ET / PV which were somewhat better than reported means of a previous cohort receiving any line of treatment (ET mean 18.7, SD 15.3; PV mean 21.8, SD 16.3; Emanuel RM, JCO 2012). Symptoms (scale 0 [absent]-10 [worst imaginable]) with the highest prevalence (score >0) included fatigue (65/73, 89%) and insomnia (47/73, 64%). The symptom with the lowest prevalence was fever (8/72, 11%). Mean QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL (GHS/QoL) was 73.3 (SD 19.1) which is comparable to a general healthy 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). TSS, symptoms, and QoL did not differ between arms. Impact of Therapy on Symptom Burden/QoL: On HU, pts initially experienced worsening of TSS, fatigue, early satiety, itching, bone pain, and fever (all p<0.05) with some symptoms returning to baseline after 6 mo (Table 1). On PEG, pts experienced improved abdominal pain and discomfort, but worsening of headache, cough, injection site irritation, blurry vision, and vision change (all p<0.05). Sad mood did not worsen on PEG, although this may be confounded by concurrent use of mood stabilizers. Concentration problems on PEG were significantly worse at 9 mo (p=0.04). Both arms experienced worsened QoL (MPN-SAF single item: HU p=0.009, PEG p=0.003). In comparing between arms, TSS significantly differed (p=0.009) with higher symptoms on HU vs PEG at 3 and 6 mo, but lower symptoms at 9 and 12 mo (Figure 1). Similar descriptive profiles were observed for most individual symptoms; however, the only symptom profiles which significantly differed between arms was early satiety (p=0.03). ELN Response and Symptom Burden/QoL: Among 62 pts with symptom and response data at 12 mo, CHR rate was 37% (23/62). Change in sad mood and sexuality were the only significant differences between pts with and without CHR regardless of arm though in the unanticipated direction (sad mood: mean change 1.5 vs -0.8, p<0.001; sexuality: mean change 2.33 vs 0.3, p=0.03). Conclusions: PEG was associated with an initial decrease in MPN symptom burden when compared to HU. However, with longer duration of therapy, this superiority dissipated. Patient-reported PEG toxicities worsened over time. On both arms, symptom worsening was observed in pts achieving an ELN CHR, possibly leading to the observed negative impact on mood and sexuality. Future research on the impact of PEG on disease progression and molecular features will be important to assess whether increased side effects with PEG are justified. Disclosures Mesa: CTI: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Harrison:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Baxaltra: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. McMullin:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Yacoub:Alexion: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mead:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kessler:Pfizer: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Research Funding; Grifols: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Biogen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy, Research Funding; LFB: Other: Member of DSMB. Ritchie:Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Arian: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Schlenk:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Promedior: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: DSMB , Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Clinical Trial Steereing Committee, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 4095 Background: Symptomatic burden in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) is present in over 70% of MPN patients (Mesa et. al. Cancer 2007). We sought to validate a broadly applicable instrument (MPN-SAF) to assess symptoms in myelofibrosis (MF), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV). Methods: Using the previously validated MF-SAF as a base instrument, we added several key additional symptoms previously identified as present in all subtypes of MPNs including headaches, concentration, dizziness, extremity tingling, insomnia, sexual problems and mood changes on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst-imaginable) scale. Validation: The MPN-SAF was administered jointly with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 as the co-validation instrument using prospective cohorts in the USA, Sweden and Italy. The translated MPN-SAF (Swedish and Italian) was created through a standard approach using teams of 4 translators working in concert. Results: Compiled MPN-SAF: Patient data: 402 MPN-SAF surveys were administered (English (25%), Italian (46%) and Swedish (28%)) in 161 ET patients (40%), 145 PV patients (36%), and 96 MF patients (24%), an average of 7.8 years (range 0 – 43 years) from their MPN diagnosis. Participants were of typical age (64.9, range 26 – 91 years) and gender (53% female) characteristic of disease. Prior hemorrhage (10%) and thrombosis (25%) were frequent. 68% of patients currently received cytoreductive therapy and 84% received cytoreductive therapy in the past. Patients and Symptomatic Burden: 19 items assessed in the MPN-SAF demonstrated consistently that the most common symptoms were fatigue (93%), decreased quality of life (84%), insomnia (65%), sad mood (65%), and sexuality problems (58%). The least common symptoms (<50% prevalence) were fevers (20%), weight loss (35%), abdominal pain (46%), cough (46%), headache (48%), and bone pain (49%). Symptoms were most severe in MF, followed by PV, then ET patients. Although symptoms are present in all 3 MPN subgroups, itching is notably more burdensome in PV patients (65%, median score of 2.8 out of 10). Additionally, abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort, early satiety and inactivity all are most prevalent and severe in MF. Interestingly, night sweats (present in 56%) overall had similar prevalence and severity across all 3 MPNs. The majority found the MPN-SAF easy to understand (98%) and “addressed most of my MPN symptoms” (96%). Comparison to EORTC-QLQ-C30: Strong correlations existed between individual items represented on both the MPN-SAF and the EORTC-QLQC30 including pain, fatigue, appetite and insomnia (all p<0.001). Additionally key symptomatic elements were highly correlated with the EORTC QLQ-C30 functional subscales. Comparison to Physician Perceptions: Comparison of the results of the MPN-SAF to enrolling physicians' blinded opinion of patients symptoms (6 assessed - night sweats, fevers, fatigue, weight loss, bone pain, and pruritus) showed excellent correlation with corresponding patients' responses except bone pain (all p<0.001). Comparison across Countries: When controlling for MPN subtype, responses between the three different countries (and 3 different languages the MPN-SAF was administered) demonstrated great consistency and correlation for all but 1 item, bone pain. Serial MPN-SAF Results: 51 patients in the USA (ET (17.6%), PV (25.5%), and MF (56.9%)), responded to a repeat MPN-SAF survey sent via US mail (50% response rate, mean time between surveys 190±63 days (range 43 – 257)). Pearson correlations indicate that most MPN-SAF items are well correlated (r >0.5, p<.001) upon repeat survey administration. Items characteristic of advanced disease, including weight loss, fever, and cough displayed lower Pearson correlations (r=0.46, -0.08, and 0.38 respectively). Intra-class correlations for test-retest reliability indicated that common features of disease, including mean BFI, inactivity, insomnia, and night sweats, were highly reproducible upon serial survey administration (ICC>0.7, 2, k model used). Conclusion: The MPN-SAF is comprehensive and reliable instrument which is available in multiple languages to evaluate MPN-associated symptoms. The MPN-SAF is recommended as a uniform symptom assessment tool for MPN patients participating in clinical trials globally. Disclosures: Vannucchi: Novartis: Consultancy. Samuelsson:Roche Sweden:. Harrison:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Mesa:SBio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; eisai: Research Funding; telik: Research Funding.