Hexner, Elizabeth O.

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

Abstract Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), the primary cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, does not always respond to treatment with high dose systemic corticosteroids. We have recently shown that a combination of three biomarkers (TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α) measured at onset of GVHD can predict day 28 response to treatment and 6-month NRM (Levine, Lancet Haem, 2015). Our goal in the current study was to determine if the same biomarker-based Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm can alsopredict treatment response andmortality whenapplied after one week of systemic corticosteroid treatment. The study population consisted of 378 patients (pts) with acute GVHD from 11 centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium. All pts were treated with systemic steroids and provided a plasma or serum sample obtained after one week of treatment (±3 days). The median starting dose of systemic steroids for Grade II-IV GVHD was 2.0 mg/kg/day and for Grade I was 1.0 mg/kg/day, after which treatment varied. Patients were divided into test (n=236) and validation (n=142) cohorts. We applied the Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm to concentrations of TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α measured after one week of treatment to generate a predicted probability of 6-month NRM, which we term the treatment score (TS). We employed unsupervised k-medoidclustering to partition TS values from the test cohort into two groups (high and low). This unbiased approach identified a high score group made up of 25% of pts (n=58) in the test cohort. We observed that the day 28 response rate (complete, CR + partial, PR) was significantly lower in pts with high scores compared to low scores in the test cohort (24% vs 65%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1A). Analysis of the validation cohort using the same TS definitions showed similar differences in response rates (22% vs 61%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1B). Further, nearly four times as many pts with high scores in both cohorts died within 6 months from non-relapse causes compared to pts with low scores (test: 57% vs 17%, p<0.0001; validation: 57% vs 14%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1C/D). As expected, the majority of non-relapse deaths in pts treated for GVHD were directly attributable to GVHD (test: 95%; validation: 89%). Relapse rates for high and low score pts were similar (data not shown), and thus pts with a high TS experienced significantly worse overall survival in both cohorts (test: 37% vs 72%, p<0.0001; validation: 38% vs 79%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1E/F). Approximately half of the pts in each cohort (test: 48%; validation: 44%) responded (CR+PR) to the first week of steroids and these ptshad significantly lower 6-month NRM than non-responders (NR) (test: 17% vs 36%, p=0.0002; validation: 13% vs 36%, p=0.0014). Yet the TS continued to stratify mortality risk independently of clinical response. In the test cohort, pts with a high score comprised 16% of all early responders and experienced more than twice the NRM of early responders with a low score (33% vs 13%, p=0.022) (Fig 2A). Conversely, test cohort pts who did not respond by day 7, but had a low score, fared much better than non-responders with a high score (NRM 21% vs 68%, p<0.0001) (Fig 2B). Two thirds of early non-responders comprised this more favorable group. These highly significant results reproduced in the independent validation cohort in similar proportions (CR+PR: 45% vs 6%, p=0.0003; NR: 61% vs 22%, p=0.0001) (Fig 2C/D). Finally, a subset analysis revealed that pts classified as NR after one week of steroids due to isolated, yet persistent, grade I skin GVHD (24/378, 6%) overwhelmingly had low treatment scores (22/24, 92%) and experienced rates of NRM (9%) comparable to responders with low scores, thus forming a distinct, albeit small, subset of pts with non-responsive GVHD that fares particularly well (Fig 3). In conclusion, a treatment score based on three GVHD biomarkers measured after one week of steroids stratifies pts into two groups with distinct risks for treatment failure and 6-month NRM. It is particularly noteworthy that the TS identifies two subsets of pts with steroid refractory (SR) GVHD who have highly different outcomes (Fig 2B/D). The much larger group, approximately two thirds of all SR pts, may not need the same degree of treatment escalation as is traditional for clinical non-response, and thus overtreatment might be avoided. Because the TSis measured at a common decision making time point, it may prove useful to guide risk-adapted therapy. Disclosures Mielke: Novartis: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants; Celgene: Other: Travel grants, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel grants; JAZZ Pharma: Speakers Bureau. Kroeger:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Kitko:Therakos: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Ferrara:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent. Levine:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent.

Abstract No laboratory test can predict non-relapse mortality (NRM) after hematopoietic cellular transplantation (HCT) prior to the onset graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Recently, we have shown that a signature of three GVHD plasma biomarkers (TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α) can predict response to GVHD therapy and NRM at the onset of clinical GVHD (Levine, Lancet Haem, 2015). Our goal in the current study was to identify a blood biomarker signature that could predict lethal GVHD and six-month NRM well in advance of the onset of GVHD symptoms. Patient samples on day +7 after HCT were obtained from 1,287 patients from 11 HCT centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC). Samples from two large centers (n = 929) were combined and randomly assigned to a training set (n = 620) and test set (n = 309). 358 patients from nine others centers constituted an independent validation set. The overall cumulative incidences of 6-month NRM were 11%, 12%, and 13% for the training, test, and validation sets respectively. The incidence of lethal GVHD, defined as death without preceding relapse while under steroid treatment for acute GVHD, were 18%, 24%, and 14% in the same groups, respectively. The median day of GVHD onset was 28 days in the training set and 29 days in the test and validation sets. We measured four GVHD related biomarkers [ST2, REG3α, TNFR1, and IL2Rα] in all samples and used the training set alone to develop competing risks regression models that used all 13 possible combinations of one to four biomarkers to predict 6-month NRM. The best algorithm, which we rigorously confirmed through Monte Carlo cross-validation of 75 different combinations of training sets, included ST2 and REG3α. No combination of one, three, or four biomarkers was superior to the combination of these two biomarkers. The day 7 algorithm identified high risk (HR) and low risk (LR) groups with 6-month NRMs of 28% and 7%, respectively (p<0.001) (Fig 1A). The relapse rates did not differ between risk groups so that overall survival (OS) was 60% for HR and 84% for LR (p<0.001) (Fig 1B). When applied to the test set (Fig 1C/D), the algorithm identified 54/309 (17%) of the patients as HR with an NRM of 33% vs 7% for LR patients (p<0.001) and 6-month OS of 57% and 81% for HR and LR patients, respectively (p<0.001). In the independent validation set (Fig 1 E/F), the algorithm identified 72/358 (20%) of the patients as HR with an NRM of 26% vs 10% for LR patients (p<0.001) and OS of 68% and 85% for HR and LR patients, respectively (p<0.001). High risk patients were three times more likely to die from GVHD than LR patients in each cohort (p<0.001) (Fig 2). The GI tract is the GVHD target organ that is most resistant to treatment and represents a major cause of NRM, and we observed twice as much severe GI GVHD (stage 3 or 4) in HR patients as in LR patients (p<0.001, data not shown). The algorithm successfully separated HR and LR strata for 6 month NRM in several groups with differing risks for GVHD and NRM, including donor type, degree. of HLA-match, age group, and conditioning regimen intensity (Fig 3). In conclusion, we have developed a blood biomarker algorithm that predicts the development of lethal GVHD seven days after HCT, which performed successfully in large multicenter validation sets. The GVH reaction is already in progress by day +7, even though clinical symptoms may not occur until days or weeks later. We speculate that the blood biomarker concentrations at this early time point reflect subclinical GI pathology, a notion that is reinforced by the fact that ST2 and REG3α, the two biomarkers in the algorithm, are closely associated with GI GVHD. The algorithm identified HR and LR strata in several patient groups with different overall risk for lethal GVHD (donor, HLA match, conditioning regimen intensity, age). This day +7 algorithm should prove useful in clinical BMT research by identifying patients at high risk for lethal GVHD who might benefit from aggressive preemptive treatment strategies. Disclosures Chen: Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Kitko:Therakos: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kroeger:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Levine:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarkers patent. Ferrara:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarkers patent.

Abstract Background: The Philadelphia chromosome negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) includePolycythemia Vera (PV), Essential Thrombocythemia (ET) and Primary Myelofibrosis (PMF). These stem cell disorders carry a propensity to evolve into acute myeloid leukemia (MPN-blast phase [BP] or post-MPN AML) with a dismal prognosis not meaningfully improved by conventional anti-leukemia therapy. Thus, MPN-BP is an urgent unmet clinical need. Responses in patients with MPN-BP to hypomethylating agents and single agent ruxolitinib have been reported. More recently, combination of ruxolitnib and decitabine has demonstrated synergistic activity in vitro in cells derived from patients with MPN-BP and from a murine model of MPN-BP (Rampal et al PNAS 2014). These observations led us to explore the safety of combined decitabine and dose escalation of ruxolitinib in MPN-BP. Objective: To establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of ruxolitinib in combination with a fixed dose of decitabine (DEC-RUX). Methods: We conducted an open label Phase I trial in patients with MPN acceleration phase (AP) as defined by 10%-19% blasts in the peripheral blood or bone marrow or a diagnosis of MPN-BP as defined by ≥ 20% blasts in the blood or bone marrow, following a previous diagnosis of ET, PV or PMF. Patients were enrolled in a standard 3+3 phase I design with an MTD defined as a dose <33% DLT. Ruxolitinib was administered at doses of 10mg, 15mg, 25mg, or 50mg every 12 hours in combination with concurrent decitabine at a dose of 20mg/m2 daily intravenously over 5 days and repeated every 28 days. Adverse events were assessed using the NCI CTCAE v. 4.0. DLTs were defined as Grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicity events not clearly related to disease and grade 4 hematologic events with a bone marrow cellularity of ≤5% and no evidence of leukemia. Response assessment was carried out every cycle using modified Cheson criteria: CR required 0% peripheral blood blasts, WBC ≥4x109/L, hemoglobin ≥10g/L, and platelets ≥100x109/L; CRi required 0% peripheral blood blasts with incomplete count recovery; and PR required ≥50% decrease in peripheral blood blasts regardless of blood counts. Results: A total of 21 patients were accrued to study (Table 1). The median age was 63 years (range 48-88). 52% carried a diagnosis of MPN-AP, and 48% carried a diagnosis of MPN-BP. 29% of patients and 24% of patients had prior exposure to ruxolitinb and decitabine, respectively. The median number of cycles received varied from 10.5 cycles in the 10mg BID cohort to 2 and 2.5 cycles in the 25mg BID and 50mg BID cohorts, respectively (Table 2). The most common Grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs observed were due to infection in all dosing cohorts. In terms of hematologic toxicity, treatment emergent Grade 3/4 anemia was observed in 1 patient in each of the 10mg BID, 15mg BID, and 50mg BID cohorts. Grade 3/4 leukopenia was observed in only 1 patient at the 50mg BID cohort, and Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was observed in 2 patients in the 10mg BID cohort and 1 patient in the 15mg BID cohort. DLT rate was below 33% for all dose levels so the MTD was not reached. The most common reason for ending study treatment was toxicity/adverse events (33%) followed by disease progression (22%). 9 patients died during study or follow-up. Of those, 5 (56%, 2 in 10mg BID cohort, 1 in 15mg BID cohort, 2 in 50mg BID cohort) died of infection, 3 (33%, 1 in each of 10mg, 25mg, and 50mg BID cohorts) of progressive disease, and 1 (11%, 25mg BID cohort) of hemorrhage. The median overall survival for patients on study was 10.4 months (95% CI 3.3 mo - not reached). CR/CRi as best response was observed in 7/21 patients (33%, 95% CI 15-57%; 2 CR, 5 CRi; Table 2). Conclusions: DEC-RUX combination therapy was safely administered to patients with MPN-AP/BP and an MTD was not reached. Based on pre-clinical data, observed safety profile, duration of treatment, and clinical responses in this phase I trial, the Recommended Phase II Dose of RUX was selected as 25mg BID for an induction cycle followed by 10mg BID in all ensuing cycles. Molecular and bone marrow pathology responses will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Promedior: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: DSMB , Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Clinical Trial Steereing Committee, Research Funding. Hexner:Blueprint medicines: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding. Abboud:Alexion: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Baxalta: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Gerson and Lehman Group: Consultancy; Cardinal: Honoraria. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy; Qiagen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa:Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 800 Background: Ruxolitinib (RUX), an oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, reduced spleen volume (SV), improved myelofibrosis (MF)-associated symptoms and quality of life (QoL), and appeared to exhibit a survival advantage over placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with MF regardless of JAK2V617F mutation status in the phase III COMFORT-I study. We describe long-term efficacy and safety of RUX from COMFORT-I, with 1 year of additional follow up beyond previously published data. Methods: Eligible pts (N=309) were randomized (1:1) to RUX or PBO. The primary analysis occurred when all pts completed 24 weeks (wks) and when half the pts completed 36 wks of treatment. All pts receiving PBO were eligible for crossover to RUX after the primary analysis; crossover before wk 24 was permitted if pts met protocol-defined criteria for worsening splenomegaly. The proportion of pts with ≥35% SV reduction at 24 wks (primary endpoint) and durability of SV response were assessed. Although symptom burden (measured daily using the modified MF Symptom Assessment Form v2.0) was only measured up to wk 24, QoL continued to be evaluated beyond wk 24 (every 24 wks) using the EORTC QoL Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30). Overall survival (OS) was assessed according to original randomized treatment. Results: In this updated analysis, median follow-up of pts randomized to RUX was 102 wks. All pts receiving PBO completed crossover or discontinued within 3 months of the primary analysis. Of 134 pts randomized to RUX who remained on treatment after the primary data analysis, 100 continue on study. Mean SV reduction in pts randomized to RUX was 31.6% at wk 24 and has remained stable with additional follow up through wk 96 (Table). In pts who achieved a ≥35% SV reduction, response was durable, with a median response duration of 108 wks. RUX treatment was also associated with durable improvements in the Global Health Status/QoL (Table) and the 5 functional domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Twenty-seven (27) pts randomized to RUX and 41 pts randomized to PBO died, representing a continued OS benefit in favor of RUX (HR=0.58; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.95; P = 0.028; Fig 1) similar in magnitude to that previously reported. OS favored RUX across subgroups including starting dose as well as baseline risk status and hemoglobin (Hgb). Of 34 pts randomized to RUX who discontinued after the primary analysis, 4 discontinued for an adverse event (AE). In pts who continued on RUX, anemia and thrombocytopenia remained the most frequently reported AEs. New onset of grade 3 or 4 anemia and thrombocytopenia was reported in only 12 and 5 pts, respectively. One pt discontinued for anemia. Overall, among all pts randomized to RUX, Grade 3 and 4 anemia regardless of baseline Hgb was reported in 37.4% and 14.8% of pts, respectively. Similarly, Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia was reported in 11.0% and 5.2% of pts, respectively. These rates were similar to those reported in the primary analysis. By wk 36, the proportion of pts receiving red blood cell transfusions decreased to the level seen with PBO and remained stable thereafter (Fig 2). Rates of nonhematologic AEs adjusted for increased follow-up duration remain similar to those seen at the time of the primary data analysis. No additional cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in pts randomized to RUX were reported. Two pts originally randomized to PBO developed AML, 21 and 178 days after crossover to RUX. There continued to be no reports of a withdrawal syndrome after RUX discontinuation. Conclusions: RUX provides durable reductions in SV and improvements in QoL. Although all pts randomized to PBO crossed over to RUX shortly after the primary analysis, with 1 year of additional follow up, RUX continues to be associated with a survival advantage over PBO. RUX continues to be well tolerated; the AE profile with long-term treatment is consistent with that previously reported. The proportion of pts receiving transfusions decreased over time to rates similar to PBO, and there were no reports of a specific withdrawal syndrome or cytokine rebound phenomenon after RUX discontinuation. Disclosures: Verstovsek: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; YM Bioscience: Research Funding. Gotlib:Incyte: Consultancy, travel to congress Other. Levy:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gupta:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; YM Biosciences: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofiå]Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Catalano:Incyte: Consultancy. Deininger:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy. Miller:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau, development of educational presentations Other; Incyte: development of educational presentations, development of educational presentations Other. Talpaz:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; B.M.S.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Winton:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Arcasoy:Incyte: Research Funding. Lyons:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Telik: Research Funding. Paquette:Incyte: Consultancy. Vaddi:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Erickson-Viitanen:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sun:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sandor:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kantarjian:Incyte: grant support Other.

Yacoub et al report excellent responses to pegylated interferon alfa-2a in patients with hydroxyurea-resistant/intolerant polycythemia vera or essential thrombocythemia.

Abstract Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), including polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and primary myelofibrosis, have a propensity to evolve into accelerated and blast-phase disease (MPN-AP/BP), carrying a dismal prognosis. Conventional antileukemia therapy has limited efficacy in this setting. Thus, MPN-AP/BP is an urgent unmet clinical need. Modest responses to hypomethylating agents and single-agent ruxolitinib have been reported. More recently, combination of ruxolitinib and decitabine has demonstrated synergistic in vitro activity in human and murine systems. These observations led us to conduct a phase 1 study to explore the safety of combined decitabine and dose-escalated ruxolitinib in patients with MPN-AP/BP. A total of 21 patients were accrued to this multicenter study. Ruxolitinib was administered at doses of 10, 15, 25, or 50 mg twice daily in combination with decitabine (20 mg/m2 per day for 5 days) in 28-day cycles. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The most common reasons for study discontinuation were toxicity/adverse events (37%) and disease progression (21%). Fourteen patients died during study treatment period or follow-up. The median overall survival for patients on study was 7.9 months (95% confidence interval, 4.1-not reached). Among evaluable patients, the overall response rate by protocol-defined criteria (complete remission with incomplete count recovery + partial remission) was 9/17 (53%) and by intention-to-treat analysis was 9/21 (42.9%). The combination of decitabine and ruxolitinib was generally well tolerated by patients with MPN-AP/BP and demonstrates potentially promising clinical activity. A phase 2 trial evaluating the efficacy of this combination regimen is ongoing within the Myeloproliferative Disorder Research Consortium.

Key PointsHigh-circulating AREG (≥33 pg/mL) reclassifies additional patients into HR categories and further refines the Minnesota aGVHD risk score. Patients with aGVHD and AREG ≥33 pg/mL have lower rates of steroid response, higher NRM, and poorer OS.