Mascarenhas, John

Abstract PRM-151 (PRM) is a recombinant form of Pentraxin-2, an endogenous human protein that acts at sites of tissue damage, inducing macrophage differentiation to prevent and reverse fibrosis. PRM has broad anti-fibrotic activity in multiple preclinical models of established fibrotic diseases and no dose limiting toxicities in phase 1 trials. Myelofibrosis (MF: primary (PMF), post-essential thrombocythemia (post-ET MF), and post polycythemia vera (Post PV MF)) is a myeloid malignancy characterized by progressive bone marrow (BM) fibrosis with resultant anemia, abnormal platelet and leukocyte counts, extramedullary hematopoiesis, and a well-defined symptom complex. This study investigated the potential of PRM in MF to reduce BM fibrosis and to improve key disease features including abnormal blood counts, symptoms, and splenomegaly. MF patients (pts) with Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) intermediate-1, intermediate-2, or high-risk disease and grade ≥ 2 BM fibrosis, either on no current therapy or on a stable dose of ruxolitinib (RUX) for ≥ 12 weeks and no improvement in spleen for ≥ 4 weeks, were eligible for stage 1 of this open-label adaptive trial. Assignment to one of the 4 treatment arms was per investigator and pt choice: PRM 10 mg/kg IV 1-hour infusion days 1, 3, 5, then weekly (QW) or every 4 weeks (Q4W), alone or with RUX, for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was overall response rate by IWG-MRT (symptoms by MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS), spleen by palpation) and/or decrease in BM fibrosis by ≥ 1 grade with otherwise stable disease. BM biopsies were obtained at baseline, 3 and 6 months, and were evaluated centrally by two blinded hematopathologists. Pts with clinical benefit were allowed to continue treatment in an extension. At least one response in any arm was required for that regimen to be evaluated in Stage 2. Twenty seven pts were enrolled: 8 PRM QW, 7 PRM Q4W, 6 PRM QW + RUX, 6 PRM Q4W + RUX. Median age 67 years (52-85); 70% DIPSS Int-2 or High Risk; 52% PMF, 15% post-ET MF, 33% post-PV MF; 63% grade 3 BM fibrosis, Hemoglobin (Hgb) < 100 g/L in 56% and < 85 g/L in 26%, platelet count (PLT)< 100 x 109/L in 52% and < 25 x 109/L in 30%; 22% were JAK inhibitor-naive and 52% had received a prior JAK inhibitor (not including ongoing RUX). Twenty pts completed 24 weeks of therapy; 18 continued extension treatment. PRM-151 was well-tolerated alone and with RUX; most adverse events (AEs) were Grade 1/2 and unrelated, with 3 Grade 3 possibly related AEs and 5 possibly related serious AEs. Nine of 26 evaluable pts responded, for an overall response rate (ORR) of 35%, with 4 IWG symptom clinical improvements (CI) and 6 BM fibrosis responses (Table 1), with ≥ 1 response in each arm. One pt had a CI and BM response. Reduction in BM fibrosis was associated with normal erythroid microarchitecture, normal or decreased myeloid:erythroid ratio, and fewer paratrabecular megakaryocytes, all potential surrogates of improved bone marrow microenvironment. IWG stable disease was observed in 77% of pts, with trends of clinical benefit in Hgb, PLT, peripheral blood blasts, spleen, and symptoms (Table 2). In 14 patients (54%), all parameters were stable or improved. Conclusion: PRM-151 was well-tolerated in patients with advanced MF, with no evidence of drug-related myelosuppression and encouraging trends in both clinical and histologic aspects of the disease. Reduction in BM fibrosis, stable to improved hematologic parameters, symptom responses, and stable to reduced spleen size support further development of PRM-151 in MF. Table 1 Two additional subjects had decrease in bone marrow fibrosis but progressive disease. Number of Patients BM Fibrosis Grade at Last Study Timepoint 3 2 1 BM Fibrosis Grade at Baseline 3 8 3 1 2 1 4 2 Abstract 713. Table 2 Outcome Parameter Denominator (n) Clinical Benefit Pts with Improvement (n/%) ORR (primary endpoint) All evaluable pts (26) IWG-MRT CI AND/OR reduction in BM fibrosis by ≥ 1 grade 9 (35%) Hgb Hgb < 100 g/L (15) ≥10 g/L increase from baseline AND no transfusions or 50% reduction in transfusions if transfusion dependent 6 (40%) PLT PLT < 100 x 109/L (13) > 100 x 109/L AND increase of ≥20 x 109/L ; increase of ≥20 x 109/L if baseline < 50, AND/OR increase of ≥ 10 x 109/L with discontinuation of transfusions 8 (62%) Blasts ≥ 1% peripheral blasts (14) No peripheral blasts 3 (21%) Symptoms All evaluable pts (26) ≥ 25% reduction in TSS ≥ 12 weeks 10 (38%) Spleen Palpable spleen (19) ≥ 25% decrease ≥ 4 weeks AND any decrease ≥ 12 weeks 5 (26%) Disclosures Verstovsek: Incyte: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Lilly Oncology: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Cell Therapeutics: Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte, CTI, NS pharma, Gilead, Celgene: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Foltz:Janssen: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Gupta:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Ritchie:Celgene, Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Promedior: Research Funding. Hoffman:Geron: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; All Cells LLC: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Promedior: Research Funding. Pozdnyakova:Sanofi: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Promedior: Consultancy. Hasserjian:Sanofi: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Promedior: Consultancy. Trehu:Promedior: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kantarjian:ARIAD, Pfizer, Amgen: Research Funding. Gotlib:Novartis: Research Funding, Travel Reimbursement, Travel Reimbursement Other; Sanofi: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Travel Reimbursement Other; Promedior: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 1733 Background: Patients with myelofibrosis (MF) suffer from cytopenias, debilitating symptoms, and splenomegaly, all of which may contribute to shortened life expectancy. Cachexia is a common manifestation of MF. Its causes are multifactorial and include elevated inflammatory cytokines and mechanical effects of splenomegaly. It is a predictor of poor survival in patients with MF. Cachexia manifests as weight loss with low body-mass index (BMI; <20–21 kg/m2) (Strasser F. Sixth Research Congress of the European Association of Palliative Care; Wagner PD. Eur Respir J. 2008;31:492–501) and with metabolic indicators of poor nutritional status including hypocholesterolemia (total cholesterol <150 mg/dL or <3.89 mmol/L), which has been linked to poor prognosis in MF (Mesa et al. Blood 2007;110:abstract 2548). In the phase III, placebo-controlled, COMFORT-I study, ruxolitinib treatment significantly reduced spleen volume, improved MF-related symptoms, and exhibited a survival advantage compared with placebo in patients with MF. In this post hoc analysis, we investigated the effects of ruxolitinib treatment on weight and total cholesterol and the association of these changes with survival in COMFORT-I. Methods: Eligible patients in COMFORT-I were randomized to receive placebo (n=154) or ruxolitinib (n=155) at starting doses of 15 and 20 mg PO BID depending on baseline platelet count. Body weight was measured at baseline, and weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 and then every 12 weeks thereafter. Total serum cholesterol was measured at baseline and weeks 4, 12, 24, and then every 24 weeks thereafter. All patients receiving PBO completed crossover or discontinued within 3 months of the primary data analysis (when all patients completed 24 weeks and when half the patients remaining on study completed 36 weeks of treatment); thus, data for these patients were available for up to week 36 for weight and week 24 for total cholesterol. Kaplan-Meier analyses of overall survival were conducted in patients randomized to ruxolitinib stratified into 2 groups based on the median values separately for maximum weight gain and for maximum increase in total cholesterol during randomized treatment. Results: At baseline, mean body weight was similar between the treatment groups (72 kg, both) and mean total cholesterol was low (<150 mg/dL) in both treatment groups (ruxolitinib: 118 mg/dL; placebo: 115 mg/dL). The proportion of patients with BMI <22 were similar between the treatment groups (ruxolitinib: 23%; placebo: 28%) as was the proportion with total cholesterol <150 mg/dL (82%, both). Patients randomized to ruxolitinib experienced a gradual increase in body weight that stabilized by week 36 of treatment whereas patients receiving placebo experienced decreases in body weight over time (Figure 1). Similarly, total cholesterol increased in patients randomized to ruxolitinib and decreased in patients receiving placebo (Figure 2). Although total cholesterol increased over time in ruxolitinib-treated patients, increases did not exceed the upper limit of normal (199 mg/dL or 5.15 mmol/L). Nearly all patients randomized to ruxolitinib experienced weight gain (96% of patients) or an increase in total cholesterol (97% of patients). In patients randomized to ruxolitinib, weight gain above the median was associated with prolonged survival relative to lesser degrees of weight gain (HR=0.40; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.90; P=0.022; Figure 3). Similarly, increase in total cholesterol above the median was also associated with prolonged survival relative to a lesser degree of total cholesterol increase (HR=0.46; 95% CI: 0.21, 1.01; P=0.048; Figure 4). Meaningful comparisons with the placebo group based on the same stratification criteria could not be conducted as the majority of such patients experienced weight loss and decreases in total cholesterol while on the study; however, overall survival favored both ruxolitinib groups relative to all patients randomized to placebo even for ruxolitinib-treated patients with lower than median levels of weight gain or increase in total cholesterol. Conclusions: Ruxolitinib therapy promotes weight gain and improves total cholesterol in MF patients. These results suggest that the survival advantage exhibited by ruxolitinib over placebo in MF patients may be partly explained by reversal of the catabolic state and cachexia. Disclosures: Mesa: Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; YM Bioscience: Research Funding. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. 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; Sanofi#x2610;#x0025; Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Clinical Trial Support, Clinical Trial Support Other. Atallah:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sun:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sandor:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gotlib:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Support for travel to meeting for the study or other purposes from Incyte Other.

Abstract Introduction: The impact of genomic alterations, such as mutations in ASXL1, on the risk of disease progression and leukemic transformation in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) is well established. Further, emerging data suggests that the number and type of mutations may impact response to therapies such as ruxolitinib or imetelstat. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT) remains the only potentially curative treatment for MF patients. However, the impact of somatic mutations on overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) is poorly understood. Using next-generation sequencing of pre-transplant blood and bone marrow samples from a well clinically-annotated cohort of MF patients who underwent allo-HSCT, we sought to determine the impact of mutational burden on outcomes. Methods: A multicenter retrospective analysis of a cohort of 84 patients was carried out. This included 52 patients treated on the MPD-RC 101 prospective study (NCT00572897), 18 patients treated at Prince Margaret Hospital, and 14 patients treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Patient and transplant characteristics are displayed in Table 1. DNA was extracted from pre-transplant bone marrow aspirate samples or peripheral blood samples. High-throughput sequencing of a panel of genes was performed. Average coverage of 829x (standard deviation of ±130) was obtained. Mutect was utilized to call single point variants (comparing our samples to a pool of normal samples) and PINDEL was used to call short insertions and deletions. We excluded all mutations present in at least one database of known non-somatic variants (DBSNP and 1000 genomes) and absent from COSMIC. Univariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier graphics were used to investigate the association of patient, transplant, and disease characteristics with OS and RFS. Results: JAK2V617F was the most frequent mutation detected in 41(48.8%) patients (Table 2). Eighteen patients (21.4%) had triple negative disease (negative for JAK2, MPL, and CALR mutations). Univariate analysis included the following: patient characteristics (age, gender), transplant characteristics (related vs. unrelated donor, matched vs. mismatched donor and myeloablative vs. reduced intensity conditioning) and disease characteristics (DIPSS and presence of mutations). Decreased OS was associated with unrelated donor status (HR 2.09, 95% CI: 1.03-4.23, p=0.04), reduced intensity conditioning (HR 4.21, 95% CI: 1.01-17.59, p=0.049), triple negative disease (HR 2.09, 95% CI: 1.02-4.30, p=0.04), and presence of U2AF1 (HR 2.53, 95% CI: 1.10-5.81, p=0.03) or SUZ12 mutations (HR 3.92, 95% CI: 1.19-12.21, p=0.02). Decreased RFS was associated with unrelated donor status (HR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.16-4.45, p=0.02), and the presence of SUZ12 mutation (HR 6.97, 95% CI: 2.37-20.49, p<0.001). A descriptive decrease in RFS in patients with U2AF1 (HR 2.15, 95% CI: 0.94-4.88, p=0.07) was observed but did not reach statistical significance. Importantly, mutations previously reported to be associated with reduced OS and RFS in the non-transplant setting, such as ASXL1, EZH2, IDH1/2, and SRSF2, were not associated with poorer outcomes in this analysis in transplanted patients. In an exploratory multivariate analysis including donor type (related vs. unrelated) and presence of U2AF1 and SUZ12 mutations, there was a significantly reduced OS and RFS in patients who harbor these mutations regardless of donor type (OS: HR 5.30, 95% CI: 2.08-13.47, p<0.001; RFS: HR 5.49, 95% CI: 2.27-13.30, p<0.001). In patients without the above mutations, having an unrelated donor was associated with worse OS (HR 2.55, 95% CI: 1.09-5.96, p=0.03) and RFS (HR 2.61, 95% CI: 1.17-5.83, p=0.02, Figure 1). Conclusions: Our analysis demonstrates that mutations previously associated with poor prognosis in MF, such as ASXL1, do not appear to confer a worsened prognosis in patients undergoing allo-HSCT, suggesting transplant may be able to overcome the impact of these mutations. However, mutations in SUZ12 and U2AF1 are associated with reduced OS in univariate and multivariate analysis (together with donor type). Further studies with larger cohorts of patients are indicated to validate these findings, and to elucidate the impact of these mutations on disease biology. Disclosures Rampal: Incye and CTI: Consultancy. Mascarenhas:Janssen: Research Funding; CTi Biopharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Merk: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Mesa:Galena: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Gupta:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Myelofibrosis (MF), polycythemia vera (PV), and essential thrombocythemia (ET), are chronic MPNs associated with a broad array of symptoms that may negatively impact patients’ quality of life (QoL). To enhance patient care, it is important to have a current and clear understanding of how MPNs affect the overall health and daily lives of patients. The MPN LANDMARK SURVEY was developed to examine patients’ perceptions of these MPNs related to disease burden, QoL, productivity, and activities of daily living (ADLs). Methods: Eligible patients diagnosed with an MPN were recruited to participate in an online survey conducted from May–July 2014in the US. Patients were asked about the overall burden of disease and impact of symptoms on their QoL, productivity, and ADLs. Descriptive analyses were conducted to assess these outcomes and examined by calculated (not reported) prognostic risk score (MF - DIPSS: Passamonti, Blood 2010; PV: Tefferi, Leuk 2013; ET - IPSET: Passamonti, Blood 2012) and symptom severity quartiles, which were determined using the MPN Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) total symptom scores. Results: 813 patients (MF=207; PV=380; ET=226) responded to the survey. A majority of patients were female (MF, 54%; PV, 62%; ET, 72%), approximately half were aged 60–74 years (MF, 55%; PV, 51%; ET, 46%), and most were covered by health insurance (>98%). Nearly half (48%) were diagnosed within the last 5 years and average time to diagnosis from first symptoms was >2 years. A high proportion of patients had intermediate to high prognostic risk scores (MF, 94%; PV, 87%; ET, 44%). The majority of patients reported feeling anxious or worried about their MPN (MF, 91%; PV, 78%; ET, 74%). Among all groups, fatigue was the most severe symptom reported (mean MPN-SAF score=6.0–6.4 on a scale of 0–10). A subset of patients in each group described their symptoms as very severe (severity score ≥7 on a scale of 0–10; MF: fatigue [59%], problems with sexual desire [49%], inactivity [46%]; PV: inactivity [48%], fatigue [49%], problems with sexual desire [49%]; and ET: problems with sexual desire [49%], fatigue [50%], headaches [40%]). The majority of patients reported that MPN-related symptoms reduced their QoL (MF, 81%; PV, 66%; ET, 57%); this was reported in all risk groups but more frequently by patients with a high risk score vs a low risk score in MF and ET (MF, 89% vs 69%; PV, 63% vs 65%; ET, 71% vs 59%). A more substantial QoL impact was reported by patients in high vs low symptom quartiles (MF, 95% vs 51%; PV, 94% vs 33%; ET, 93% vs 15%). Similarly, MPNs also had a marked negative impact on reduced work hours, sick days, voluntary job termination, receipt of medical disability, early retirement, and ADLs (Table 1). For example, among patients employed, approximately one fourth reported missing ≥1 day of work (MF, 29%; PV, 19%; ET, 23%) in the last 30 days before the survey. Even patients with low prognostic risk scores often reported missing ≥1 day of work (MF, 33%; PV, 23%; ET, 22%) or cancelling ≥1 day of planned activities (MF, 46%; PV, 35%; ET, 34%). Patients in the high vs low symptom quartiles were more likely to call in sick to work (MF, 48% vs 0%; PV, 52% vs 4%; ET, 38% vs 0%) or cancel ≥1 day of planned activities (MF, 77% vs 5%; PV, 56% vs 7%; ET, 67% vs 3%). Conclusion: The findings from this large, first-of-its-kind survey demonstrate a marked burden of disease across all 3 MPNs that is not limited to symptoms but extends to QoL, productivity, and ADLs. Although high prognostic risk scores have long been associated with a significant burden of disease, in this study, patients with a low risk score also reported significant burden. The symptom burden reported is consistent with previous studies, thus validating the present dataset. MPN treatment considerations should include reducing the symptom burden and improving QoL and productivity to enhance the overall health and lives of MPN patients. Disclosures Mesa: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Miller:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Thyne:Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Mangan:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Goldberger:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fazal:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ma:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Wilson:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria. Dubinski:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Boyle:ICF International: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mascarenhas:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: PAC is an oral kinase inhibitor with specificity for JAK2, FLT3, IRAK1, and CSF1R that has demonstrated significant and sustained spleen volume reduction (SVR) and symptom control vs BAT (excluding JAK2 inhibitors) in MF pts regardless of platelet count (PERSIST-1). The PERSIST-2 study was a randomized, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial of PAC 200 mg BID and PAC 400 mg QD vs BAT (including JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib [RUX]) in pts with 10 or 20 MF whose platelet counts were ≤100,000/µL, a recognized adverse prognostic variable. Prior JAK2 inhibitor use was allowed. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to PAC BID, PAC QD, or BAT. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were the percentages of pts achieving ≥35% SVR (MRI or CT) and ≥50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS; MPN-SAF TSS 2.0), both from baseline to Week 24. The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of pooled PAC (BID+QD) to BAT and the secondary objectives were to compare PAC BID and PAC QD individually to BAT. PK samples were collected and analyzed for PAC. Safety analyses were based on all pts exposed to study treatment of any duration (safety population); efficacy analyses were based on ITT pts with a randomization date allowing Week 24 endpoint evaluations prior to the full clinical hold* (ITT efficacy population). Results: 311 pts were randomized (107 PAC BID, 104 PAC QD, 100 BAT), 308 received study drug, and 221 were included in the ITT efficacy population (74 PAC BID, 75 PAC QD, 72 BAT). Demographics and baseline disease characteristics were generally balanced among the treatment arms (Table) and analysis populations. A total of 32 (44%) BAT pts in the ITT efficacy population received RUX as treatment at some point on study. Population PK analyses showed that the steady-state plasma levels achieved with BID were higher than with QD, however the Cmax levels were lower. A significantly higher percentage of pts in the pooled PAC arm achieved SVR ≥35% (18% [27/149]) vs the BAT arm (3% [2/72]; p=0.001; Figure 1A). 25% of PAC pts (37/149) had ≥50% reduction in TSS vs 14% of BAT pts (p=0.079; Figure 1B). In secondary analyses vs BAT, PAC BID demonstrated significant improvement over BAT for both efficacy endpoints with 22% achieving SVR ≥35% (BAT=3%; p=0.001) and 32% achieving ≥50% reduction in TSS (BAT=14%; p=0.011). The PAC QD arm had a significant SVR ≥35% (15% v 3%, respectively; p=0.017), but a similar proportion with ≥50% reduction in TSS (17% v 14%, respectively; p=0.652). More PAC pts reduced their red blood cell transfusion dependence at Week 24 (defined as a ≥50% reduction in average transfusions/month for 3 months relative to baseline) with 19% (7/37) in the PAC QD arm, 22% (8/36) in PAC BID, and 9% (3/35) in BAT. There was no significant difference observed in OS across the treatment arms (Figure 2). Hazard ratios for OS (95% confidence intervals) were 0.68 (0.30, 1.53) for PAC BID v BAT, 1.18 (0.57, 2.44) for PAC QD v BAT, and 0.61 (0.27, 1.35) for PAC BID v QD. PAC BID maintained this survival advantage vs BAT across nearly all demographic and MF-associated risk factors. During the course of the study, 10 (9%), 15 (14%), and 15 (14%) died on PAC BID, PAC QD, and BAT, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) associated with PAC were gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting) and hematologic (anemia and thrombocytopenia), and were generally less frequent for BID vs QD administration. Grade 3/4 cardiac AEs occurred in 7%, 13% and 9% of PAC BID, PAC QD, and BAT pts, respectively, and grade 3/4 bleeding AEs occurred in 14%, 7%, and 7%, respectively. Grade 3/4 bleeding AEs were associated with grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, which was also more common in the PAC BID group. Nine pts had cardiac failure (2% PAC QD, 4% PAC BID, 3% BAT) and 1 (1%, PAC QD) had intracranial hemorrhage.* Conclusions: The PERSIST-2 study is the only randomized, controlled trial to date in pts with MF and thrombocytopenia (platelets ≤100,000/µL), allowed prior JAK2 inhibitor treatment exposure (including RUX), and allowed RUX as BAT comparator. Irrespective of prior JAK2 inhibitor treatment, both PAC arms were more effective at SVR than BAT; however, PAC BID appeared more active than QD dosing and achieved significance versus BAT for both SVR and TSS. The most frequent AEs with PAC were gastrointestinal and hematologic toxicities. *PAC on full clinical hold by the FDA on 2/8/2016 based on concerns around excess deaths and cardiac and hemorrhagic events in PERSIST-1. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Talpaz:CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ariad: Other: Expense reimbursement, travel accomodation expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; BMS - Canada: Consultancy. Gerds:CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Stein:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Gupta:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Drummond:CTI BioPharma: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau. Granston:CTI BioPharma Corp.: Employment. Daly:CTI BioPharma Corp.: Employment. Dean:CTI BioPharma Corp.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Al-Fayoumi:CTI BioPharma Corp.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Callahan:CTI BioPharma: Employment. Singer:CTI BioPharma Corp.: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Leadership . Gotlib:Novartis: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Steering Committee Chairman, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Jamieson:GSK: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding. Harrison:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Baxter: Consultancy, Honoraria; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Mesa:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Verstovsek:CTI BioPharma Corp: Research Funding.

Abstract Background : Patients diagnosed with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), including myelofibrosis (MF), polycythemia vera (PV), and essential thrombocythemia (ET), experience disease burdens that can negatively affect their quality of life. Disconnects between patient and physician perceptions of disease burden or poor patient-physician communication may delay or prevent achievement of treatment goals. The MPN LANDMARK SURVEY is the first large US-based survey designed to evaluate disease burden and patient-physician communication in MPN disease settings. Methods : All eligible patients diagnosed with 1 of the 3 MPNs and physicians treating patients with MPNs that were recruited were surveyed in the US during May-July 2014.The surveys included ≤67 questions (depending on the type of MPN and respondent) and required approximately 20–25 minutes to complete. Descriptive analyses were conducted to identify gaps in perceptions of disease burden and patient-physician communication. Results : The MPN LANDMARK SURVEY was completed by 813 patients (MF=207; PV=380; ET=226) and 457 physicians. Approximately half of the patients were 60–74 years of age (MF, 55%; PV, 51%; ET, 46%), the majority were female (MF, 54%; PV, 62%; ET, 72%) and had a degree from a 4-year college or postgraduate institution (MF, 65%; PV, 65%; ET, 58%), and >98% had health insurance. The majority of physicians graduated from medical school 5–24 years before the survey (67%) and practiced in outpatient settings (single specialty groups, 42%; academic hospitals, 31%). Patient-physician communication gaps were identified in several important areas: (1) Prognostic assessment: most patients did not recall receiving a prognostic risk score, but most physicians reported classifying patients by prognostic risk (Table 1). (2) Symptom assessment: physicians were more likely than patients to report that physicians ask about patients' most important disease-related symptoms or about a full and comprehensive list of symptoms (Table 1). (3) Treatment goals: the most important treatment goals were different in MF (patients: delay disease progression; physicians: improve symptoms) and PV (patients: delay disease progression; physicians: prevent vascular/thrombotic events) settings (Table 2). Patients and physicians in the ET setting both reported that prevention of vascular/thrombotic events was the most important treatment goal. Patients and physicians in the MF and PV settings reported fatigue as the most pressing disease manifestation that patients would like to resolve (MF: patients, 47%; physicians, 65%; PV: patients, 33%; physicians, 31%), whereas patients and physicians differed in the ET setting (patients: fatigue, 33%; physicians: stroke, 29%). Most patients reported a desire to be ≥50% responsible for their treatment decisions (MF, 72%; PV, 71%; ET, 75%). Physicians reported that most patients sometimes or often did not wish to comply with their primary treatment recommendation (MF, 77%; PV, 84%; ET, 79%). (4) Treatment satisfaction: overall, more than one third of patients were “somewhat satisfied” or “dissatisfied” with their physician's communication about their condition and treatment (MF, 34%; PV, 43%; ET, 45%) and with their physician's overall management of their disease (MF, 36%; PV, 40%; ET, 42%). Among patients who changed their MPN doctor (MF, 47%; PV, 46%; ET, 56%), dissatisfaction with prior care received was the most frequently reported reason for the change (MF, 40%; PV, 37%; ET, 33%). Approximately one fifth to one fourth of patients included their doctor's office among the most helpful sources of information about their diagnosis (MF, 27%; PV, 22%; ET, 20%), and most patients included the internet among the most helpful sources (MF, 90%; PV, 87%; ET, 89%). Conclusion : Important disconnects exist between patients' and physicians' perceptions in MPN disease settings. In addition, the majority of physicians report classifying patients by prognostic risk, including PV and ET settings, which do not have widely accepted prognostic risk scores. Although physicians generally appreciate the burden that MPNs have on patients, patient management may be enhanced with improved elucidation of patient symptoms and clear communication regarding the goals and potential benefits of interventions. Disclosures Mesa: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Miller:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Thyne:Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Mangan:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Goldberger:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fazal:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ma:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Wilson:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria. Dubinski:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Boyle:ICF International: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mascarenhas:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Cytoreductive therapy with hydroxyurea (HU) has been considered first line therapy for patients with high risk polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) since the results of the PVSG-08 trial demonstrated thrombotic risk reduction (Fruchtman SM et al 1997) for PV and PT1 for ET (Harrison CN et al 2005). Although HU is well tolerated by most patients and has been shown to reduce thrombotic risk in this setting, concern regarding the leukemogenic potential of this oral ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor balanced by the observation of molecular responses with interferon-α (IFN-α) led us to compare the clinical response and tolerability of pegIFN-α (PEG) and HU in a global, randomized, phase III trial. Methods : MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) enrolled patients with high risk (age >60 years, history of thrombosis, extreme thrombocytosis, symptomatic splenomegaly, uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors), newly diagnosed (<5 years), WHO defined ET/PV that were treatment naïve (HU <3 months) and randomized (1:1) to PEG or HU. The primary endpoint was complete hematologic response (CHR) rate by European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria between the arms after 12 months of therapy. A planned interim analysis based on intent-to-treat with testing boundaries for efficacy and futility was conducted after 75 patients were on study for 12 months. Response assessment by ELN criteria were conducted by blinded review by 4 investigators (JM, RAM, AY, RH). Intent-to-treat analysis was conducted for efficacy endpoints (HU n=39; PEG n=36). Safety analysis included all patients who received treatment (HU n=36; PEG n=36). Results: Patients: The MPD-RC 112 trial involved 24 centers in 6 countries; enrollment began 09/2011 and concluded 7/2016 prior to full accrual due to study drug availability with 168 patients enrolled (Table 1 for 75 patients in the interim analysis). There was no imbalance between arms with respect to history of thrombosis, erythromelalgia, diabetes, hypertension, but age was significantly older on HU. This remained true when analyzing by ET/PV disease strata with the exception of diabetes which was slightly imbalanced within the PV cohort (HU 5/23, 22%; PEG 0/21, 0%; p<0.05). Response: CHR and PHR were observed in 13 (33%) and 14 (36%) patients for an overall response rate (ORR) of 69% (27/39) for HU, and 10 (28%) and 19 (53%) for an ORR of 81% (29/36) for PEG (CHR comparison p=0.60 based on z-test which did not cross either testing boundary). 10 patients randomized to HU were not evaluable for 12-month response due to never initiating treatment (n=3) or early study discontinuation for AEs (n=1), patient withdrawal (n=5), or treatment non-compliance (n=1). 3 patients were not evaluable for response on PEG due to early study discontinuation for AEs (n=1), physician decision (n=1), or patient withdrawal (n=1). Excluding patients who never initiated treatment did not impact the primary endpoint comparison (HU 13/36, 36%; PEG 10/36, 28%; p=0.45). For ET, CHR and PHR were observed in 7 (44%) and 4 (25%) patient on HU, and 6 (40%) and 6 (40%) for PEG (CHR comparison p=0.83). For PV, CHR and PHR were observed in 6 (26%) and 10 (44%) patients on HU, and 4 (19%) and 13 (62%) for PEG (CHR comparison p=0.58). Normalization of spleen by palpation at 12 months was seen in 2/7 (29%) and 5/7 (71%) of the HU and PEG treated patients with palpable spleen at baseline, respectively. Among 38 PV patients, rate of phlebotomy use at 12 months was 0/18 (0%) vs 5/20 (20%) on HU and PEG (p=0.02). From baseline to best score through 12 months, 9/28 (32%) and 12/34 (35%) patients with data on HU and PEG, respectively, had a ≥50% reduction in MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (p=0.79). Toxicity: No Grade 4 AEs occurred in either treatment arm. Overall, Grade 3 AEs occurred in 5/36 (14%) HU patients and 16/36 (44%) PEG patients (Grade 3 hematologic: 4/36 [11%] HU vs 8/36 [22%] PEG; Grade 3 non-hematologic: 5/36 [14%] HU vs 16/36 [44%] PEG). See Table 2 for Grade 3 AEs regardless of attribution occurring in >10% of patients in either arm. Conclusions: This interim analysis does not show a clear difference in primary endpoint of CHR between HU and PEG. A comparative analysis of the quality of life and symptom burden will provide further insight into the tolerability of these agents (Mesa et al ASH 2016). The final results of this pivotal trial will provide necessary data required to firmly establish the optimal first line therapy for patients with high risk ET/PV. Disclosures Mascarenhas: CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: DSMB , Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Clinical Trial Steereing Committee, Research Funding. Mesa:Celgene: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Yacoub:Alexion: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Harrison:Baxaltra: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: 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. Vannucchi:Novartis: 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:Incyte: Honoraria. Ritchie:Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. Schlenk:Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding.

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.

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

Abstract A limited number of drugs are available to treat patients with polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET). We attempted to identify alternative agents that may target abnormalities within malignant hematopoietic stem (HSCs) and progenitor cells (HPCs). Previously, MDM2 protein levels were shown to be upregulated in PV/ET CD34+ cells, and exposure to a nutlin, an MDM2 antagonist, induced activation of the TP53 pathway and selective depletion of PV HPCs/HSCs. This anticlonal activity was mediated by upregulation of p53 and potentiated by the addition of interferon-α2a (IFN-α2a). Therefore, we performed an investigator-initiated phase 1 trial of the oral MDM2 antagonist idasanutlin (RG7388; Roche) in patients with high-risk PV/ET for whom at least 1 prior therapy had failed. Patients not attaining at least a partial response by European LeukemiaNet criteria after 6 cycles were then allowed to receive combination therapy with low-dose pegylated IFN-α2a. Thirteen patients with JAK2 V617F+ PV/ET were enrolled, and 12 (PV, n = 11; ET, n = 1) were treated with idasanutlin at 100 and 150 mg daily, respectively, for 5 consecutive days of a 28-day cycle. Idasanutlin was well tolerated; no dose-limiting toxicity was observed, but low-grade gastrointestinal toxicity was common. Overall response rate after 6 cycles was 58% (7 of 12) with idasanutlin monotherapy and 50% (2 of 4) with combination therapy. Median duration of response was 16.8 months (range, 3.5-26.7). Hematologic, symptomatic, pathologic, and molecular responses were observed. These data indicate that idasanutlin is a promising novel agent for PV; it is currently being evaluated in a global phase 2 trial. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02407080.