Palmer, Jeanne

Background: Myelofibrosis (MF) is a clonal bone marrow disorder characterized by a constitutional symptoms, splenomegaly, anemia, elevated WBC and bone marrow fibrosis. Ruxolitinib is a JAK2 inhibitor approved for patients with Intermediate-2 (INT-2) or high risk disease based on dynamic international prognostic scoring system (DIPSS), however, there are limited options for patients with early disease. Interferon alpha (IFNa) is a cytokine therapy that has been used in treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia and polycythemia vera (PV). In these diseases, there can be a reduction in the clonal burden in addition to a hematologic response. Therefore, we sought to use this therapy in patients with MF. Methods: Patients who had MF were enrolled on an IRB approved clinical protocol in a single arm, single institution study. Patients were stratified to either an early disease arm (characterized by intermediate 1 (INT-1) risk or advanced disease (Int-2 or high-risk disease based on DIPSS). Patients were started on ropeginterferon (interferon-alpha 2b) at 50 ug every two weeks, and the dose was titrated up to either 300 ug every other week, or until unacceptable toxicity. Patients were monitored for response based on IWG criteria. Results: Ten patients with MF have been enrolled on the study to date (Early: 3, Int/High: 7). Median age was 69.5 (39 - 88), four patients were female. Five patients had primary MF (PMF), 4 had post-essential thrombocythemia and 1 post PV MF. Five patients had previous treatment for their disease. Four patients continue to receive active treatment (2 early disease, and 2 advanced disease). Reasons for stopping include disease progression (3), toxicity (1), alternate treatment (1) and lack of benefit (1). The median number of cycles for those who ended treatment was 7.5 (4-47), and for those who remain on treatment, they range from 16 - 46 cycles. Five patients achieved a clinical improvement, 3 had a spleen response, and 2 had a symptom response. A grade 3 adverse event (AE) potentially attributable to the treatment occurred in 6 patients (60%), 4 (40.0%) patients had anemia, and 2 (20.0%) patients had lymphopenia. Only one patient discontinued therapy due to AEs (dizziness, atrial fibrillation). One death has occurred to date, due to an unrelated cause. Discussion: Ropeginterferon is a well-tolerated therapy that results in clinical improvement in half the patients, and appears to be well tolerated. These results, along with historic data suggesting possible reduction in clonal burden, suggest that ongoing studies are warranted to further understand the clinical benefit of ropeginterferon. Disclosures Zimmerman: Pharmaessentia: Current Employment. Mesa:Incyte: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; LaJolla Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Clinical trial

Introduction: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), including primary myelofibrosis (PMF), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV), have a propensity to evolve into blast phase myeloproliferative neoplasm (BP-MPN) with a 20-year incidence rate of 9.3 %, 3.9% and 2.6%, respectively. (Szuber et al., 2019)Treatment options for BP-MPN are limited and the prognosis of these patients is dismal with a median survival of only 3.6 months and 5-year survival rate of <5%.(Tefferi et al., 2018) Considering the recent reported data on the efficacy of venetoclax when combined with hypomethylating agents (HMA) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in both relapsed/refractory and newly diagnosed unfit patients, we have extended such combination therapy for patients with BP-MPN. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 14 consecutive BP-MPN patients who received venetoclax plus HMA therapy between August 2018 and June 2020. We collected data regarding clinical characteristics of chronic phase MPN and BP-MPN, cytogenetic and leukemia mutation profile, efficacy and outcome. Oral venetoclax was administered in combination with azacitidine 75 mg/m2 days 1-7 (5 patients) or decitabine 20 mg/m2 days 1-5 (9 patients). Venetoclax dose was adjusted based on drug interactions particularly with azole antifungal prophylaxis. Diagnostic, risk and response assignments were according to the 2017 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria.(Döhner et al., 2017) Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment by flow cytometry, karyotype or next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed in a subset of patients. Results: Patient characteristics at time of leukemic transformation, treatment details, response rates and overall outcome are shown in Table 1. Median age of patients was 67 years (range 48-81) with poor-risk cytogenetics in 69% of patients. JAK2 was mutated in 10 patients (71%) and CALR in 2 (14%); other mutations included TP53 in 5 patients (36%), TET2 in 4 (29%), KRAS in 3 (21%), IDH1/2 in 3 (21%), ASXL1 in 2 (14%) and U2AF1 in 2 (14%). Eight patients (57%) received venetoclax and HMA combination therapy upfront for their BP-MPN, 2 patients (14%) had failed HMA therapy previously and one patient had prior allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT). Two patients (14%) presented with myeloid sarcoma; one of these two patients documented partial resolution of the extramedullary tumor by imaging studies, after treatment with venetoclax plus HMA. Among the remaining 12 patients, overall response rate (ORR) was 42% (n=5) and included complete remission (CR) in 3 patients (25%) and partial remission (PR) in another 2 (17%). The best response to therapy was seen after a median of 1 month (range, 1-2). Among 3 CR responders, 2 (66.6%) had minimal residual disease negative by NGS and not evidence of preceding MPN, then they successfully transitioned to AHSCT, while the third CR patient at the time of best response showed persistence of the TP53 mutation. Additionally, one PR patient subsequently relapsed and received salvage chemotherapy followed by AHSCT. (Table 2) Although data is limited by the small cohort and short follow up when the outcome of patients treated with venetoclax in combination with HMA were compared to Mayo Clinic's historical control of patients with BP-MPN treated with HMA alone (n=26) or intensive chemotherapy (n=69), there was higher CR rate in patients treated with venetoclax and HMA (25%) compared to those receiving HMA alone (4%; p=0.048) but not to those receiving intensive chemotherapy (35%; p<0.0001). Moreover, the intensive chemotherapy cohort showed 24% of CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) not seen in patients receiving HMA alone or HMA with venetoclax (Figure1). Conclusions: The relatively high rate of complete response observed in our patients with BP-MPN were similar to those reported in a pivotal study of elderly unfit AML patients treated upfront with venetoclax + HMA with overall response rates of 68%.(DiNardo et al., 2019) Furthermore, responders included patients with adverse molecular risk factors who usually respond poorly to conventional chemotherapy (i.e. TP53 mutated patients). Our observations provide preliminary evidence for the potential efficacy of venetoclax and HMA combination therapy in BP-MPN with the goal of achieving CR/CRi followed by consolidative AHSCT wherever possible to provide durable remission and meaningful survival benefit. Disclosures Foran: Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; Xencor: Research Funding; H3Biosciences: Research Funding.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic continues to challenge effective treatment delivery to hematologically-compromised patients, including those with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). MPNs are characterized by clonal proliferation of hematopoietic cell lines in bone marrow. As such, increasing reports of COVID-19 related thrombotic events highlight how MPN patients are at an increased risk in navigating potential complications during this pandemic. Mitigation strategies to lesson MPN patient exposure to COVID-19 are vital. Though, such efforts come at an inherent cost to effective healthcare delivery. Restriction of regular in-clinic treatments and reported shortages of MPN pharmacotherapies present these patients with diminishing continued care. To understand how MPN patient care has been impacted by COVID-19, an internet-based questionnaire was deployed surveying a variety of disease and pandemic related items (reported elsewhere; Palmer J et al, ASH 2020 submitted). A single free-text response item instructed respondents to: "Please tell us anything else (bad or good) about how the COVID-19 outbreak has impacted your MPN care." This qualitative analysis evaluated first-hand comments directly from patients in order to form a richer understanding of how those with MPNs have been managing disease-related care amidst this pandemic. Methods This COVID-19 survey was hosted via Mayo Clinic's secured REDCap system for online surveys and posted on MPN organizational partner websites. Surveys were completely anonymous. The free-text responses describing impacts to MPN care were each independently reviewed by 2 individuals for overall sentiment (positive, negative, both, or neutral [no impact]) and categorized for themes. The 2 reviewers were assessed for agreement. Conflicting reviews were evaluated then adjudicated by an algorithm for cases meeting selected conditions or by lead author review for all remaining cases. Descriptive statistics are reported. Results Of the 1217 consenting adult patients participating in the overall COVID-19 study, 824 provided free-text responses. Of these, respondent MPN diagnoses included, essential thrombocythemia (n=324, 39%), polycythemia vera (n=251, 30%), myelofibrosis (n=153, 19%), and other/undisclosed (96, 12%); 69% (n=567) were female; median age was 63 (range 21-93); 38% (n=313) were from the US, 38% (n=313) UK, and 24% (n=198) other/unknown. There was 89% (n=734) sentiment agreement between reviewers. Free-text responses about the impact of COVID-19 on MPN care were 49% (n=400) negative, 21% (n=177) positive, 8% (n=65) both positive and negative, and 22% (n=182) neutral/no impact. Table 1 shows a selection of MPN patient free-text responses reflecting common negative and positive sentiment themes. Negative impact (n=400): The most common negative impact involved delays or cancellations of visits or perceived inaccessibility to regular providers (n=261, 65%). Primarily this sentiment was driven by lack of clinic availability and restrictions at treatment centers or by providers. However, some respondents reported delaying or canceling visits themselves due to fear of COVID-19 exposure. Perceived health consequences from this delay were also expressed. There were 129 (32%) respondents with concern regarding changes or access to medications, including explicit drug supply shortages. Some patients resorted to self-adjusting medications and reusing single-use supplies. General anxiety, stress, and isolation were also reported (n=98, 25%). Positive impact (n=177): Availability of telemedicine comprised the majority of positive impacts of the pandemic (n=95, 54%), with many noting the reduced travel time to visits. Routine local testing coupled with follow-up telemedicine was favorable. Despite general positivity towards telemedicine, some reported preferences for in-person visits; commenting that telemedicine was impersonal, difficult to schedule or receive virtual communication, and expressed concern for lack of spleen examinations during virtual visits. Conclusion Positive and negative aspects were reported including MPN-specific issues. Healthcare systems should use such data to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic and retain the positive impacts such as telemedicine, while developing education materials and other resources to address the reported negative impacts where possible. Disclosures Mesa: CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; LaJolla Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding.

Preclinical Rationale: Myelofibrosis (MF) is a chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm for which there are limited therapies. TGFβ plays a pivotal role in the pathobiology of MF by not only promoting bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) and collagen deposition, but also by enhancing the dormancy of normal but not MF hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). TGFβ has also previously been reported to inhibit normal megakaryocyte (MK) production (Bruno et al Blood 1998). TGFβ1 promotes the synthesis of collagen by normal human mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and activates the TGFβ receptor I/SMAD pathway as well as non-canonical TGFβ pathways. We generated MKs from MF subject mononuclear cells (MNCs) and showed that they elaborated significantly greater levels of TGFβ1 than TGFβ2/3 TGFβ1 treatment reduced the numbers of hematopoietic colonies generated by normal but not MF MNCs. Treatment of MSCs with AVID200, a potent TGFβ1/3 protein trap, significantly decreased MSC proliferation, phosphorylation of SMAD2, and collagen expression. Robust expression of pSMAD2 was observed in the absence of exogenous TGFβ in normal donor or MF-MKs, Addition of AVID200 to -MKs decreased pSMAD2 without affecting total SMAD2/3, indicating that AVID200 blocks the effects of autocrine TGFβ produced by MKs and led to increased numbers of MKs. Moreover, treatment of primary MF MNCs with AVID200 led to increased numbers of progenitor cells with wild type JAK2 and a reduction of mutated colonies. AVID200 blocked TGFβ1-induced p57Kip2 expression and SMAD2 activation by MF MNCs allowing the normal progenitor cells to preferentially cycle, proliferate, and form hematopoietic colonies. Clinical Trial Design: Based on these findings, a phase 1 trial of AVID200 is ongoing in INT-2/high risk MF subjects resistant or intolerant to ruxolitinib; baseline platelet count of ≥ 25 x 109/L, and grade 2/3 BMF. Subjects received intravenous AVID200 (Lots A and B) in dose cohorts of 180 mg/m2 (A), 550 mg/m2 (A), 180 mg/m2 (B) on Day 1 of a 21 day cycle. Cohorts of 3 subjects with a target toxicity rate of 30% were enrolled to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). A modified toxicity probability interval design was used. Response was assessed by IWG/ELN criteria after 6 cycles of AVID200. Subjects attaining at least a CI or SD with a decrease in BMF by ≥1 grade, continued AVID200. Clinical Trial Results: 10 subjects were enrolled (1 withdrew before receiving treatment) and 9 were treated with AVID200 and were evaluable for DLT assessment [Table1]. Median time after ruxolitinib discontinuation was 3.5 months (0.5-12.2). No DLTs were observed. Grade 3/4 AEs (regardless of attribution) were observed in 6 (66.7%) subjects. Grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs observed were epistaxis (1, 11.1%), extraocular muscle paresis (1, 11.1%), fatigue (1, 11.1%) and rash (1, 11.1%). Grade 3/4 hematologic AEs were anemia (3, 33.3%) and thrombocytopenia (2, 22.2%) [Table 2]. The median number of cycles received was 5.7 (range 0 - 12). 5 subjects received 6+ cycles and were evaluable. CI occurred in 2 subjects [anemia, spleen and TSS (n=1); TSS (n=1)] 1 of which is still being treated, 2 subjects had SD, 1 subject with 21% blasts prior to study treatment had progressive MPN-BP. 4 subjects failed to reach response evaluation after 6 cycles, 2 had PD due to increasing splenomegaly, 1 subject received an allogeneic transplant and 1 is still being treated [Cycle 2]. The median platelet count at baseline was 114 (range: 42-290) and 159 after cycle 6 [Figure 1]. Maximum changes in platelets from baseline was +64% [range -73%, 169%] in all subjects. 7 subjects had an increase in platelets from baseline during treatment. 2 subjects normalized their platelet count from thrombocytopenic levels. The effect of AVID200 on BMF is currently being examined. 2 subjects remain on treatment. Conclusions: AVID200 a TGFβ1/3 protein trap is well tolerated in advanced MF subjects. Clinical responses were observed at the 550 mg dose and the expansion efficacy cohorts at doses 2 and 3 are enrolling 12 additional subjects. Furthermore, AVID200 therapy improved thrombocytopenia in MF subjects which may be due to AVID200 inhibiting the effects of TGFβ1 on normal MKpoiesis. Updated subject safety and efficacy data along with correlative data will be presented. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Celgene, Prelude, Galecto, Promedior, Geron, Constellation, and Incyte: Consultancy; Incyte, Kartos, Roche, Promedior, Merck, Merus, Arog, CTI Biopharma, Janssen, and PharmaEssentia: Other: Research funding (institution). Kuykendall:Blueprint Medicines: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Komrokji:Jazz: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Agios: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Gerds:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Migliaccio:Novartis: Research Funding. O'Connor-McCourt:Forbius: Current Employment. Tremblay:Forius: Current Employment. Nadler:Forbius: Consultancy; Nadler Pharma Associates: Current Employment; Symphogen: Consultancy; Iksuda Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tessa Therapeutics: Consultancy. Mesa:Celgene: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; LaJolla Pharma: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Sierra Onc: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Hoffman:Forbius: Consultancy; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dompe: Research Funding; Protagonist: Consultancy.

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a chronic myeloid neoplasm characterized by either primary myelofibrosis, or secondary MF following essential thrombocythemia or polycythemia vera. Historically, therapy has been symptom directed; however, in 2011, the first janus kinase inhibitor (JAK-i) – ruxolitinib – was approved for treatment. This medication was found to be effective in reduction of symptom burden and spleen size; however, the median duration of response is about 3 years. In addition, many patients are intolerant or develop toxicities to ruxolitinib, including patients with anemia, as well as thrombocytopenia. Therefore, there is a critical need for alternate therapeutic options for patients with MF. Additional JAK-i have been developed over the last 8 years, including fedratinib, momelotinib, and pacritinib. Fedratinib recently received approval for treatment of MF both in the first-line and second-line setting. It has shown efficacy in the first-line setting, as well as in 30% of patients who are refractory/intolerant of ruxolitinib. This review covers the trials that have led to the approval of ruxolitinib as well as fedratinib, as well as reviews of two JAK inhibitors that are still under clinical investigation: momelotinib and pacritinib.

Introduction: Approximately two-thirds of patients with primary or post-essential thrombocythemia/polycythemia vera myelofibrosis (MF) have anemia, many of whom require red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. In this heavily transfused population there are severely limited treatment options; effective treatment for anemia in MF is a critically unmet medical need. Luspatercept is a first-in-class erythroid maturation agent which binds to select TGF-β superfamily ligands to reduce aberrant Smad2/3 signaling and enhance late-stage erythropoiesis. Here we report the interim results of the ongoing open-label, phase 2 trial evaluating luspatercept in patients with MF and anemia. Methods: Seventy-four patients with MF and anemia were enrolled, including 41 not receiving concomitant ruxolitinib at study entry who received either no RBC transfusions (n = 20; Cohort 1) or 2-4 RBC U/28 d in the 12 wks prior to treatment (n = 21; Cohort 2). Thirty-three enrolled patients were receiving a stable dose of ruxolitinib for at least 16 wks, of which 14 were not receiving RBC transfusions (Cohort 3A) and 19 were (Cohort 3B). Patients in Cohorts 3A and 3B received a median dose of ruxolitinib of 20 mg/d (range, 5-50 mg/d) for a median of 41 and 43 wks, respectively. Patients received luspatercept every 21 d at a starting dose of 1.0 mg/kg in doses escalating up to 1.75 mg/kg. The primary endpoint in patients not receiving transfusions was a hemoglobin (Hb) increase ≥ 1.5 g/L at every assessment from baseline for ≥ 12 consecutive wks, within the first 24 wks on study. In patients receiving RBC transfusions, the primary endpoint was RBC transfusion-independence (RBC-TI) for ≥ 12 consecutive wks, within the first 24 wks on study. Additional endpoints included proportion of patients achieving mean Hb increase ≥ 1.5 g/dL in Cohorts 1 and 3A, and ≥ 50% decrease in RBC transfusions (minimum 4 RBC U decrease from baseline) in Cohorts 2 and 3B, with both responses lasting ≥ 12 consecutive wks, within 24 wks of study entry. Intent-to-treat (ITT) data were analyzed as of May 10, 2019. Results: Median age was 71 y (range, 50-88 y) and 42 (57%) were male. Median interval from MF diagnosis to study entry was 3.3 y (range, 19 d-13.5 y). Seven patients were Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) intermediate-1, 58 were intermediate-2, and 8 were high risk. Median Hb concentration at study entry was 8.8 g/dL (range, 6.7-9.8 g/dL) for Cohort 1 and 8.6 g/dL (range, 6.7-9.1 g/dL) for Cohort 3A. Patients in Cohort 2 received a median of 2.7 RBC U/28 d (range, 1-5 U/28 d) and patients in Cohort 3B received a median of 2.3 RBC U/28 d (range, 2-4 U/28 d). Patients received a median of 8 cycles of luspatercept (range, 1-24 cycles). Efficacy data are displayed in the Table, per ITT data. Two of twenty (10%) and 3/14 (21%) patients in Cohorts 1 and 3A, respectively, achieved an absolute Hb increase ≥ 1.5 g/dL at every measurement from baseline over any consecutive 12 wks. Two of twenty-one (10%) and 6/19 (32%) patients in Cohorts 2 and 3B, respectively, achieved RBC-TI over any consecutive 12 wks. Median duration of Hb response was 20 wks (range, 12-27 wks) in Cohort 1 and 12 wks (range, 12-13 wks) in Cohort 3A. Median duration of RBC-TI was 23 wks (range, 16-31 wks) in Cohort 2 and 32 wks (range, 12-65 wks) in Cohort 3B. Three (15%) and 8 (57%) patients in Cohorts 1 and 3A, respectively, achieved a mean Hb increase of ≥ 1.5 g/dL. Eight (38%) and 10 (53%) patients in Cohorts 2 and 3B, respectively, achieved a ≥ 50% reduction in RBC transfusion burden from baseline. Ruxolitinib exposure remained stable throughout the 24-wk treatment period in both Cohorts 3A and 3B. There was no difference in spleen size between responders and non-responders. Four (5%) patients had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs). There were no treatment-related deaths. Treatment-related AEs occurring in ≥ 3% of patients were hypertension (11%), bone pain (8%), and diarrhea (4%). Seven (9%) patients had ≥ 1 AE resulting in treatment discontinuation; 23 (31%) remain on study. Conclusions: The initial results from this ongoing study suggest clinically significant activity of luspatercept in patients with MF-associated anemia, including those receiving concomitant ruxolitinib. A minority of AEs were grade 3-4 in severity, consistent with previous studies in MDS and beta-thalassemia. Disclosures Gerds: CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding. Vannucchi:Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Passamonti:Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Kremyanskaya:La Jolla: Consultancy; Incyte, Celgene, Constellation, Protagonist.: Research Funding. Gotlib:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Promedior: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kartos: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding. Ribrag:BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AZ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; argenX: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mead:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Harrison:Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; CTI: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Promedior: Honoraria; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AOP: Honoraria; Shire: Speakers Bureau. Mesa:Shire: Honoraria; Promedior: Research Funding; Genotech: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; LaJolla: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy; Galena Biopharma: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Incyte: Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Gale:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Laadem:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pariseau:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Gerike:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Linde:Abbott Laboratories, Inc.: Equity Ownership; Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership; Fibrogen, Inc.: Equity Ownership. Reynolds:Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Verstovsek:Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma Corp: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Pharma Essentia: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Ital Pharma: Research Funding; Protaganist Therapeutics: Research Funding; Constellation: Consultancy; Pragmatist: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Luspatercept is an investigational therapy that is not approved for any use in any country. Luspatercept is currently being evaluated for potential use in patients with anemia due to myelodysplastic syndromes, beta-thalassemia, or myelofibrosis.