Yap, Christina

Advances in oncology drug development are driving the emergence of novel therapies, challenging traditional dose-efficacy assumptions in dose-finding oncology trials. Traditional trial designs aim to identify a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) by assessing patients’ dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) – adopting traditional dose-efficacy paradigms that efficacy increases with treatment dose. With these new therapies in mind, emphasis should shift toward methodological advancements in trial designs aimed at identifying optimal doses, rather than solely determining MTDs. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within dose-finding oncology trials is increasingly recommended to better understand treatments’ tolerability profiles, especially given the extended tolerability assessment windows for novel immunotherapies and targeted therapies. This article introduces PRO-ADD ( P atient- R eported O utcomes A ided D ose-optimisation D esign), a modular trial design framework for dose-optimisation. We leverage this framework to optimise dosage with respect to three key outcomes – clinician-assessed DLTs, PROs and preliminary efficacy. PRO-ADD performs well at identifying the optimal dose (both efficacious and tolerable) – successfully identifying the most tolerable effective dose and avoiding escalation to larger, safe doses offering no additional efficacy benefit. As the field evolves, patient-centric dose-finding approaches incorporating PROs are crucial in advancing our understanding of treatment tolerability, and in turn, shaping the future landscape of dose-finding oncology trials.

PURPOSE There is growing scientific interest in incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs) to assess tolerability, inform dose selection, and guide later stage trial design. However, research indicates that PRO objectives in DFOTs are often unclear. The Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Trials-Research Objectives Recommendations (OPTIMISE-ROR) project was established to support trialists to effectively incorporate PROs into DFOTs. METHODS Using the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework, guideline development included the following: (1) a methodological review of published DFOTs incorporating PROs; (2) candidate item generation, refined through expert consultation; (3) a two-round international multistakeholder Delphi survey (N = 109 in Round 1 [October 2024]; N = 96 in Round 2 [December 2024]); and (4) an independently chaired virtual consensus meeting (N = 31; January 2025) where multidisciplinary, international experts reviewed and voted to finalize items for inclusion. RESULTS Consensus was reached on six recommendations emphasizing three core PRO tolerability concepts: overall side effect impact, symptomatic adverse events, and overall health-related quality of life. The integration of PROs to inform final dose recommendations in dose escalation and optimization trials should be considered, regardless of trial design. The recommendations highlight the importance of PRO data analysis over time and across dose levels, defining PRO research objectives as descriptive or statistically powered, and assessing PRO-related end points to guide end point selection for subsequent studies. CONCLUSION This foundational guidance outlines key PRO research objectives in DFOTs. By facilitating the systematic integration of PROs, this guidance supports the utilization of patient-centered evidence for the tolerability and efficacy assessment of therapies to inform dose escalation, optimization, and regulatory evaluation—ultimately contributing to the development of safer, more effective therapies.

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

TPS7 Background: Penis cancer is a rare but potentially fatal disease. A limited body of evidence exists on which to base the majority of management decisions for patients with regional nodal metastases. Five-year survival for patients with a single involved inguinal lymph node treated with surgery alone is approximately 80%, whilst it ranges from 0 to 12% for patients with pelvic node involvement (N3). Additional strategies are required for the management regionally-advanced disease. InPACT (NCT02305654) aims to determine prospectively the relative benefits and sequencing of surgery, chemotherapy, and chemoradiotherapy in the management of patients with penis cancer who present with palpable or radiologically evident inguinal lymph node metastases. InPACT addresses the following questions: Is there a role for neoadjuvant therapy and, if so, which of the two options (chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) before surgery gives superior outcomes? Among patients whose inguinal node histology predicts a high risk of recurrence, does prophylactic pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) plus chemoradiation to the inguinal and pelvic fields improve survival compared to chemoradiation alone? Methods: A Bayesian trial design aims to include a wide population of patients and incorporates two randomisations: InPACT-neoadjuvant and InPACT-pelvis. Participants are stratified by disease burden (extent of nodal involvement), by the presence or absence of high-risk radiological features, and by GFR. Participants with high disease burden where neoadjuvant treatment is thought to be indicated are randomised to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Participants with intermediate disease burden are randomised to one of 3 arms: Surgery alone or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to surgery. Participants in the low-burden group proceed directly to surgery. Participants with postoperative inguinal node pathology that shows high-risk features may then proceed to InPACT-pelvis where randomisation is between adjuvant chemoradiotherapy ± PLND for those not previously treated with chemoradiotherapy & between PLND & observation for those previously treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The study aims to recruit 200 participants. The primary outcome measure is overall survival, with secondary outcome measures of disease-specific survival, disease-free survival, and freedom from locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis. Feasibility, toxicity, the type/extent of surgical complications, and quality of life will be assessed as secondary endpoints for all the InPACT treatment arms. To October 2021, 65 participants have been recruited with centres open in the UK, US and Canada. Clinical trial information: NCT02305654.

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

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

Abstract MAJIC is a phase II trial of Ruxolitinib (RUX) vs Best Available Therapy (BAT) in essential thrombocythemia (ET) patients with resistance/intolerance to Hydroxycarbamide (HC) per European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria. Primary outcome was rate of complete hematological response (CHR) within 1 year (ELN criteria); secondary outcomes included partial HR, safety, thrombosis, hemorrhage, progression free survival (including transformation), molecular response (MR), symptom & quality of life (QOL) assessment. We present new data concerning molecular, symptom & clinical responses. Patients were stratified by JAK2V617F status, patient-reported symptoms & QOL determined using EQ5D, MDASI & MPN Symptom Assessment Form (MPN10), & compared using linear mixed models of post-baseline scores through month 12 adjusting for baseline; response was defined as ≥50% reduction in MPN10 total symptom score (TSS). JAK2/CALR/MPL allele burdens were assessed at baseline & 4 monthly. 110 patients were eligible for the modified ITT analysis, 58 (52%) & 52 (48%) in RUX & BAT arms respectively, comprising 44 males, 66 females, mean age 64.2ys, & resistant (24.5%), intolerant (51.8%) or both (22.7%) to HC. CHR was achieved in 27 (46.6%) of RUX patients vs 23 (44.2%) BAT patients (χ2 test p= 0.81). PHR occurred in 26 (44.8%) & 27 (51.9%) of RUX & BAT treated respectively. Grade 3 or 4 anemia occurred in 19% & 0% for RUX arm vs 0% (both grades) for BAT arm, grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia in 5.2% & 1.7% of RUX vs 0% (both grades) of BAT patients respectively. Grade 3 or 4 infections occurred in 10.3% of RUX patients vs 3.6% BAT arm. 9 RUX treated patients had 10 thrombotic events & 1 RUX patient a hemorrhage; vs 5 thrombotic & 5 hemorrhagic events in BAT patients (adjusted following central review). Transformations to post-ET MF occurred in 8 RUX vs 3 BAT treated patients, 1 RUX patient developed AML. 2 non-treatment related deaths occurred in each arm. Mean MPN-10 TSS & individual symptoms of early satiety & itching during the first 12 months were all significantly lower for RUX vs BAT (all p<0.05). Patients who achieved CHR had significantly better TSS, fatigue, inactivity, concentration problems, & MDASI symptom interference (all p<0.05) at baseline vs those without; however, scores during treatment did not appear to differ between CHR & non CHR groups after adjusting for these baseline differences. Allele burden during study & MRs (per ELN-IWG criteria Barosi Blood 2013) are shown in Table 1. Assays for JAK2 V617F were performed independently in 3 centres using qPCR (Guy's), TSCA NGS (Oxford) & amplicon-based NGS (Salisbury) & revealed Mean (range): JAK2 (Guy's): 33.2 (0.1-94.6), N=52; JAK2 (Oxford): 38.0 (0.5-92.2), N=52; JAK2 (Sal): 38.3 (0-90.0), N=50 (limited to JAK2 positive only). With Interclass Correlation Coefficient as follows ICC (Guy's v Oxford): 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.95) ICC (Guy's v Sal): 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.95) ICC (Oxford v Sal): 0.997 (95% CI 0.994-0.998). Notably MRs (n=5) only occurred with RUX treatment. There was no pattern of MR or progression with C/PHR or transformation, but 1 patient who transformed to PET MF had a complete MR. In a separate analysis baseline symptoms & QOL were not associated with JAK2, CALR, nor MPL status. Within RUX, baseline symptoms & QOL did not predict MR; however, fatigue, early satiety & abdominal discomfort (all p<0.05, Table 1) were significantly lower among those with MR vs not during treatment with a descriptively higher symptom response rate (2/4 [50%] vs 9/30 [30%]). Three non pre-specified multivariate analyses were performed to assess baseline factors influencing CHR (modelled for: treatment received, HC resistance or intolerance, white cell count, platelets, Hb & JAK2/CALR status); occurrence of ≥ grade 3 anemia or thrombocytopenia (modelled for: Hb (≥ 100g/dl) JAK2/CALR status); & transformation to PET-MF (modelled for: treatment, Hb ≤100g/dl). Only baseline Hb ≤100g/dl was significant for grade 3+ anemia (OR [95% CI]=0.17 [0.04, 0.72]), & PET-MF only occurred in patients with baseline WBC <10x109/L. This updated analysis shows that HC resistant/intolerant ET is clinically & molecularly diverse. We confirm that these patients are at high risk of thrombosis & transformation as suggested in prior retrospective studies. Molecular responses were limited to RUX & for the first time we demonstrate such responses may correlate with symptom improvement but not always with progression events. Disclosures Harrison: Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Baxaltra: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mead:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Aliman:Novartis: Other: Institutional funding and grant for international conference. . Chen:Novartis: Other: Advisory Board. Coppell:Novartis: Other: Travel, accommodation and conference attendance. Knapper:ONO pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Travel and expenses for international conferences. Ali:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Conference sponsorship, advisory board meetings. Hamblin:Novartis: Other: Advisory Board. Dueck:Bayer: Honoraria. Cross:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mesa:Celgene: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. McMullin:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Key Points After hydroxycarbamide therapy in high-risk ET, ruxolitinib showed no improvement for complete or partial response rates compared with BAT. Ruxolitinib significantly improved some disease-related symptoms, but rates of thrombosis, hemorrhage, or transformation were not different.