Mesa, Ruben A.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Splenectomy is performed for palliating symptoms in patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF; as well as post essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis/ post polycythemia myelofibrosis (Mesa et. al. Cancer2006;107(2):361–70). Pre-operative computed tomograms (CTs) of the spleen are frequently performed for estimating spleen size and anatomy, but sometimes raise concern over radiographic splenic masses. We performed a retrospective analysis of splenectomized PMF patients to determine the predictive value of CT in these patients. METHODS: Splenectomized patients, with confirmed PMF (and POST ET/PV MF), with an available pre-operative CT scan were included. Pre-operative CT scans were reviewed in a blinded fashion by a radiologist (B.B.), and histopathology was concurrently reviewed in a blinded fashion by a hematopathologist (C.Y.L.), with attention for radiographic evidence of splenic masses, splenic infarction and hemorrhage, evidence of extra-splenic masses. Additionally splenic volume was calculated by CT through an algorithm using maximal splenic length, width, and slice size (prorated ellipsoid where volume = (30+.58(XxYxZ)). Results from each review were compared and analyzed against clinical outcomes and documented splenic mass. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients had concurrent CT and splenic pathology available underwent splenectomy for myelofibrosis (20 PMF; median age at diagnosis 64.6 years (range (46–79), 52% males). Splenic volume estimations by CT correlated well with splenic mass measurements. Splenic volume estimation by CT was 2365 CC (range 736–11355 CC), compared with a measured median splenic mass of 2000 mg (range 730–11750 mg) (bivariate analysis p<0.001). Splenic lesions were identified in a total of 33 patients (87%), 10 only by histopathology (30%), 3 only by CT (9%), and 20 by both (61%). Histopathologically 15 patients had localized hemorrhage, 13 had splenic infractions, and 8 had nodular foci of extramedullary hematopoiesis. Only 2 patients had evidence of an alternative malignancy (concurrent chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL, n =1) or systemic mast cell disease (n = 1). CT was very sensitive for detecting focal low density lesions (LDLs), which are roughly spherical regions of decreased contrast enhancement in the spleen, and detected the majority of macroscopic lesions. The presence of splenic infarctions histologically was associated with decreased post splenectomy survival (p=0.02; median 7.2 months vs. 15.0 months), however the sensitive (but not specific) presence of LDL lesions by CT did not have prognostic significance. The CT appearance of splenic hemorrhage was nonspecific, and since these areas of parenchymal hemorrhage were likely subacute/chronic, they could not be reliably distinguished from other LDLs. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-operative CT in patients whom undergo palliative splenectomy for myelofibrosis is a sensitive tool for determining the presence of small splenic lesions (hemorrhage, infarction and EMH). Additionally splenic volume estimation by CT, correlates well with measured splenic mass and may assist in operative planning. Splenic lesions in PMF (post ET/PV MF) by CT rarely represented an alternative malignant process, and should likely not be the sole indication for splenectomy. Splenic infarctions were associated with decreased survival after splenectomy, however CT is not always able to distinguish these lesions from EMH and hemorrhage.

Background: Quality of life (QOL) is predictive of survival in many malignancy types, including myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs; Scherber 2017, Sloan 2012, Montazeri 2009, Nilsson 2017). We have previously characterized that an association exists between symptom burden and QOL among MPN patients, but due to the disease specificity of symptoms, symptoms rather than QOL remains a key therapeutic endpoint (Scherber 2017, NCCN Guidelines). Despite these advancements, our understanding of the extent that different patient and disease characteristics, including symptoms, contribute to overall QOL has remained elusive. In this analysis, we utilized information from a large survey of MPN patients to develop a model of QOL that establishes the degree that individual variables contribute to QOL, including psychosocial variables, comorbidities, and MPN disease symptoms. Methods: The FATIGUE survey of MPN patients (Scherber 2016) investigated self-reported symptoms using the MPN10 (Scherber 2012), depression utilizing the Profile of Mood States-Brief (POMS-B, McNair 1971), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2, Kroenke 2003) and Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5, Berwick 1991), and QOL utilizing a single numeric analog scale (range 0-10) regarding overall quality of life. Linear regression analysis was utilized to establish the relationship between individual symptoms and QOL, and a structural equation model (SEM) was used to identify complex relationships among patient demographics, behavioral factors, comorbidities, and QOL. Results: A total of 914 patients from the online survey lived in the USA and provided data for this analysis. Average age was 62 with 67% of patients being female and the mean BMI was 25. Education varied across middle school or high school education (22%), undergraduate or college degree (44%), masters (26%), to doctorate (8%). 43% of respondents were employed. Fatigue (β coefficient 0.23, p<0.001), inactivity (β 0.21, p<0.001), concentration difficulties (β 0.13, p<0.001), sad mood (β 0.18, p<0.001), and night sweats (β 0.05, p=0.03) showed statistically significant impact on QOL. SEM Model: We developed the SEM model in Figure 1. Out of all variables analyzed, MPN total symptom burden demonstrated the strongest association with (β 0.89) with QOL, followed by depression (β 0.76). Comorbidities, including COPD and renal issues, age, and body mass index abnormalities had some impact on symptoms (all β <0.40), but did not demonstrate a significant impact on QOL. Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was 0.905 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.051 (0.048, 0.054) indicating good fit. Conclusions: Previous clinical trials of JAK inhibition have targeted improvement in symptoms as a key endpoint, and ultimately demonstrated improvements in overall survival. The mechanism of this survival benefit has not been fully explored. This analysis suggests that symptoms and mood are strongly associated and potentially a major contributor to QOL among MPN patients, whereas other major comorbidities and age are not as strongly correlated. Efforts are underway to analyze more comprehensive datasets to better understand the role of other variables, including marriage status and financial concerns, on QOL. Disclosures Scherber: Blueprint: Other: Ad board; Incyte: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Hasselbalch:Novartis: Research Funding; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Other: Data monitoring board. Mesa:Baxalta: Consultancy; LaJolla: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; CTI: Research Funding; Galena Biopharma: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding; Genotech: Research Funding; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Shire: Honoraria; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy.

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

Abstract Introduction: Myeloproliferative Neoplasm (MPN) patients encounter debilitating pain syndromes as a result of their disorder. Opioids are frequently employed in cancer-related pain but have been increasingly recognized for their risk profiles including accidental overdose, addiction and death. With many MPN patients facing near-normal life expectancies, chronicity of opioid use may increase the risk of adverse events. In this survey, we evaluated the prevalence of MPN opioid use, risk factors for negative outcomes and compared the features of this population to MPN patients not receiving opioid therapy. Methods: This study was performed by the MPN Quality of Life Study Group. A survey was designed by a team of MPN investigators experienced with MPN symptomatology. Patients completed the MPN-10, a 10 item survey of MPN symptoms completed on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale (Blood. 2011 Jul 14;118(2):401-8). Other surveyed tools included the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) as well as DSMV criteria for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD). The survey was posted on high-traffic MPN-related webpages focused on patient education and advocacy (MPN Forum, MPN Net, MPN Research Foundation, MPN Voice)for a total of 28 days. Patients currently receiving opioids were compared to patients not receiving opioids and statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results Demographics A total of 416 patients completed the survey and were compared by active opioids use (n=69) vs. no active opioid use (n=347). Patients described a history of myelofibrosis (MF, 28.8%), polycythemia vera (PV, 44.2%) and essential thrombocythemia (ET, 26.9%). Most MPNs were diagnosed between 1-3 years ago (22.2%), 3-10 years ago (35.0%) or >10 years ago (30.4%). Patients were furthermore of expected mean age (60.7), primarily female (75.0%) and from the United States (66.6%). Few patients had a history of transformation to acute leukemia (0.5%), severe bleeding (12.3%) or blood clot (26.5%). Mean individual symptom scores and prevalences were 3.0 and 65.6% for abdominal discomfort and 3.3 and 59.4% for bone pain, respectively, indicating a low to moderate symptom burden. Patients Receiving Opioid Therapy Patients on opioid therapy (n=69) displayed a number of high risk features for adverse outcomes including a personal history of substance abuse (20.2%), respiratory disease (33%) and mental health disorders (60.1%). By DSMV criteria, 5.9% of opioid patients scored 'mild' and 2.9% scored 'moderate' for OUD (total 8.8%), consistent with prevalence in the general population. Approximately 24.6% of opioid-using patients scored moderate to high risk on the ORT but despite this, did not appear more likely to meet criteria for OUD (p=0.81). Palliative care and pain management were involved in only 34.3% of patients and side effects of opioids were discussed in only 70.1% of all cases. Opioid vs. Non-Opioid Patients Compared to patients not receiving opioid therapy, patients currently on opioid treatment were more likely to describe more frequent and/or more severe abdominal discomfort (88.4% vs. 61.0%, p<0.001; mean 5.0 vs. 2.6, p<0.001), bone pain (87.0% vs. 53.9%, p<0.001; mean 5.6 vs. 2.4, p<0.001), unintentional weight loss (41.2% vs. 21.4%, p=0.001), inactivity (94.2% vs. 71.5%, p<0.001), early satiety (84.1% vs. 58.2%, p<0.001), and impaired quality of life (mean 4.9 vs. 6.6, p<0.001). They were also more likely to describe regularly taking pain medications (85.5% vs. 34.5%, p<0.001) as well as attempt non-pharmacological treatments to manage symptoms (Figure 1). Despite more aggressive pain treatment approaches, only 42% of opioid patients reported satisfaction with their current pain plan vs. 62.2% of patients not receiving opioid therapy. Conclusions: MPN patients face significant symptom burden despite often limited reduction in life expectancy. Patients furthermore demonstrate a high prevalence of risk factors for opioid-related complications including overdose and substance misuse. Despite aggressive pain regimens, opioid patients are less likely to voice adequate symptom control or satisfaction with their pain treatment plans. Providers should be cognizant of opioid-related complications and consider subspecialty pain management referrals or adaptation of the JCO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Chronic Pain in Survivors of Adult Cancers (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sep 20;34(27):3325-45). Disclosures Scherber: Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy. Palmer:Novartis: Research Funding. Dueck:Phytogine: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment. Mesa:Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: MPN-related pain, including abdominal discomfort (53.2%), and bone pain (48.5%), is a prevalent complaint within the disorder and is associated with impaired patient quality of life, reduction in most functional domains and overall poor prognosis. Non-targeted treatments for MPN disorders have been previously shown to provide little symptomatic relief for MPN pain. To date, little is known about patient viewpoints on MPN pain, its relationship to other chronic pain syndromes and the impact of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic pain therapies. In this study, we performed an international survey of MPN patients to better understand the prevalence and management of MPN pain. Methods: This study was performed by the MPN Quality of Life Study Group. A survey was designed by a team of MPN investigators experienced with MPN symptomatology. Survey content included the Barriers Questionnaire II (BQII), a 27-item survey validated to assess patient belief barriers to optimal management of cancer pain measured on a 0 (do not agree at all) to 5 (agree very much) scale (Pain. 2002 Oct;99(3):385-96.). Patients also completed the MPN-10, a 10-item survey of MPN symptoms completed on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale (Blood. 2011 Jul 14;118(2):401-8). The survey was posted on high-traffic MPN-related webpages focused on patient education and advocacy (MPN Forum, MPN Net, MPN Research Foundation, MPN Voice) for a total of 28 days. Survey questions evaluated patient demographics, pain histories, current and prior treatment strategies, as well as satisfaction with and barriers to available treatment options. Results: Demographics A total of 502 MPN patients (MF 26.9%, PV 44.2%, ET 28.9%) completed the survey. Patients were of expected mean age (60.5 years) and primarily female (74.9%). Most were from the United States (66.7%) and primarily English speaking (92.2%). Patients described being diagnosed with their MPN 3 to 10 years (35.4%) or >10 years ago (30.8%). Splenic enlargement was vocalized by 36.5% of patients and few patients had had a known history of blood clots (25.4%), severe bleeding (13.3%), conversion to acute leukemia (0.4%) or prior bone marrow transplant (1.4%). Patients described a treatment history of a variety of MPN therapies including aspirin (82.7%), hydroxyurea (60.6%), phlebotomy (40.6%), ruxolitinib (25.9%), interferon (18.5%), anagrelide (17.3%), active clinical trial (5.0%) and radiation treatment (0.4%). Pain Severity, Prevalence and Treatments Among surveyed patients, the MPN-10 mean was 28.3. Mean individual symptom scores and prevalence were 3.1 and 65.6% for abdominal discomfort and 3.0 and 60.4% for bone pain, respectively indicating a low to moderate symptom burden. Most patients had no prior history of chronic pain prior to their MPN diagnosis (47.1%), with chronic abdominal pain and chronic bone/muscle pain noted prior to MPN development in 5.6% and 20.8% of patients, respectively. Most patients felt that their chronic pain has either stayed the same (26.2%), worsened (28.3%) or significantly worsened (14.5%) since their MPN diagnosis. Many patients found pharmacologic and non-pharmacological therapies efficacious for individual pain symptoms, and 42.1% described regularly taking medication to control their pain (Table 1). Barriers to Pain Management Overall, 42.3% of MPN patients reported being unsatisfied with their current pain management plan. Despite this, only 43.5% of patients stated that their MPN providers discussed pain during office visits. Palliative Care (3.1%) and Pain Management (7.3%) were infrequently engaged. On the BQII, patients described being confident that cancer can cause pain (mean 4.2, SD 1.1) but did not necessarily expect to have pain following their MPN diagnosis (mean 2.2, SD 1.8). Conclusion Chronic pain (abdominal, bone) is a prevalent and undermanaged feature of MPN disorders. Chronic non-MPN pain is further complicated by the development of the disorder. Many MPN patients lack understanding on its prevalence and furthermore feel ill-equipped to manage it. Patients have, however, found symptomatic benefit from various pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment modalities that require further exploration. Results from this study suggest MPN patients should be assessed regularly for pain and offered early referral to specialized services for evaluation, source identification and treatment. Table 1. Table 1. Disclosures Scherber: Incyte: Consultancy; Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Mesa:Ariad: Consultancy; Galena: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. Dueck:Bayer: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria; Phytogine: Employment. Palmer:Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), including essential thrombocythemia (ET), polycythemia vera (PV) and myelofibrosis (MF) can be characterized by heterogeneous symptoms, disease features, and prognosis. Timely monitoring of blood counts and if needed, referral for discussion of stem cell transplant (SCT), are critical to optimizing survival and quality of life. In connection with the MPN SCT Transplantation Timing Taskforce's (MS3T's) work in developing the DIPPS-based Stem Cell Spectrum Timing Tool, the survey was deployed to explore factors contributing to delayed entry to SCT. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for MPNs strongly recommend referral to specialized centers with expertise in the management of MPNs (Mesa et. al. 2017). To date, efforts to assess the timing and quality of MPN patient care from the patient's perspective have been minimal. Methods: Patients were recruited from MPN-related Facebook pages, subscribers of MPNforum Magazine and E-mail support groups including the MPN-NET, MPDchat, and the MPN Research Foundation. Hematologists, MPN patients, and advocates constructed the 11-item survey questions and content. The survey was available for patient response between July 4-11th2018. Patients were queried on MPN type, time of diagnosis, and details regarding knowledge of their MPN disease features and care. Data: Demographics.Overall 2382 MPN patients responded to the online survey. Of these, 901 (38%) patients had ET, 865 (36%) had PV, 561 (24%) had MF, 41 (2%) had MPN-unclassifiable or MPN/MDS overlap and 15 (1%) did not respond. Among MF patients, 56% reported having primary MF, 42% secondary MF, 1% prefibrotic MF, and 1% reported having already undergone SCT (1% did not specify type of MF or transplant). The majority of patients were diagnosed with their MPN by a hematology/oncology (77.8%) or family practice (15 %) physician. MPN Care provider and monitoring: Out of all respondents, 35% reported being cared for by an MPN specialist, 36% were not cared for by an MPN specialist and 27% were unsure if their provider was an MPN specialist. Overall less than half (42%) of patients reported having sought a second opinion from an MPN specialist. The majority (87%) of participants knew their mutational status relating to the highly publicized and widely tested JAK2 V617F mutation (73.8%) and CALR (10.2%). However, a statistically insignificant number of patients had any idea of other driving and secondary mutations including MPL, EZH2, SRSF2, IDH1/2 or ASLX-1. Blood counts were reviewed by a hematologist for the majority of patients (93% responded "yes", 4% responded "sometimes", 3% responded "no"). SCT Referral: Among ET and PV, <1% of patients reported being referred to SCT. For MF, 34% of participants reported having been referred for SCT discussion (30% for primary MF and 28% for secondary MF). Conclusions: MPN patients often report receiving care outside of the care of an MPN specialist. Additionally, despite the poor outcomes and higher likelihood of progression to AML, less than a third of patients with secondary MF report being referred for SCT discussion. Independent validation of patient responses, particularly in regards to MPN specialized care and timing of transplant discussion should be investigated further. However, these patient responses suggest many patients may be receiving less than optimal MPN care. These results demonstrate the importance of community hematology/oncology physician and patient education regarding optimal MPN care. Disclosures Mesa: UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Palmer:Novartis: Research Funding. Harrison:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Verstovsek:Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Scherber:Gilead: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is the only curative therapy for myelofibrosis (MF). Consideration of HCT is recommended by international working groups and national guidelines for MF patients (pts) age <70 with intermediate-1 with adverse indicators, intermediate-2 or high-risk disease by the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) for MF- a recommendation made in the absence of clear data indicating the optimal timing of HCT for MF. In this large multicenter retrospective study, we analyze overall survival in MF pts treated with and without HCT. Methods: Disease characteristics, treatments, and outcome data from MF pts receiving non-transplant therapy at 14 US academic medical centers between 2000-2014 were retrospectively collected. MF pts who underwent HCT were identified from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). The Cox proportional hazards model was used. The reference time point (time zero) was time of referral for the non-transplant (non-HCT) arm and the time of transplant for the HCT arm. The main effect variable (HCT vs. non-HCT) violated the proportionality assumption where comparing to non-HCT, mortality was higher with HCT in early time period from time zero but then was lower in late time period; therefore, the comparison is presented as early time period and late time period. The Cox model identified 14 months from time zero as the ideal cut point to define early and late time periods. The proportionality assumption is satisfied within each of these two periods. Results: A total of 1377 and 551 pts were included in the non-HCT and HCT arms, respectively (Table 1). In the overall cohort, survival was higher with non-HCT vs. HCT in early time period (relative risk [RR]: 0.34, P< .0001, Figure 1D), but in late time period survival was lower with non-HCT vs. HCT (RR: 2.37, P< 0.001) (Table 2). In the DIPSS low-risk MF group, while survival was higher with non-HCT vs. HCT in the early time period (RR: 0.19, P=0.007, Figure 1A), survival was lower with non-HCT in the late time period, but the latter did not reach statistical significance (RR: 1.45, P=0.39). In the DIPSS intermediate-1 risk group, a survival advantage was present with non-HCT treatments vs. HCT in the early time period (RR: 0.27, P < .0001, Figure 1B), however survival was lower with non-HCT in the late time period (RR: 3.13, P < .0001). Similarly, in those with DIPSS intermediate-2 and high-risk MF, survival advantage was observed with non-HCT in the early time period (RR: 0.41, P< .0001, Figure IC), but survival was lower with non-HCT in the late time period (RR: 2.82, P < .0001). Conclusion: A long-term survival advantage with transplant was observed for pts with intermediate-1 or higher risk MF, but at the cost of potential early mortality. The magnitude of benefit increased as DIPSS risk score increased. Although this retrospective study has limitations, the results have an impact on clinical practice by suggesting that transplantation could be considered earlier in the disease course and supports the recommendation for consideration of HCT in the setting of intermediate-1 risk MF. Disclosures Gowin: Incyte: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau. Verstovsek:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ali:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gupta:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Gerds:Celgene: Consultancy; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) including polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and myelofibrosis (MF) are clonal hemopathies characterized by burdensome symptom profiles and impaired quality of life. Treatments include pharmacologic approaches, phlebotomy, and bone marrow transplant. Outcome studies have historically focused on hematologic improvement and survival benefit. Few prospective studies have evaluated patient-reported symptoms and quality of life outcomes after standard therapy. The Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Quality of Life (MPN-QOL) Study Group aims to objectively quantify symptomatic response to standard treatments. Here we provide updated results for the prospective MPN Experimental Assessment of Symptoms by Utilizing Repetitive Evaluation (MEASURE) trial. Methods: The MEASURE trial is a prospective international cohort study evaluating responsiveness of the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score (MPN-SAF TSS or MPN-10) in an anticipated 480 ET, PV, and MF patients receiving non-experimental medical therapy and/or phlebotomy. Patients complete the MPN-SAF TSS (JCO 2012) for seven consecutive days at enrollment then again for seven days between 90 days and six months later. Patients also complete the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) instruments at enrollment and on the first day of the second assessment. Physicians report demographic, laboratory, and clinical data. Results: Demographics To date, 340 patients have enrolled and 270 have completed both study visits. Participants include ET (60%), PV (29%), and MF (12%; including 68% primary MF, 12% post-ET, 20% post-PV) patients. Enrolled patients are 51% male. The most common therapies received prior to enrollment were aspirin (34%), phlebotomy (15%), hydroxyurea (14%), and warfarin/clopidogrel/anticoagulation (6%). The most common current MPN therapies were hydroxyurea (67%), aspirin (24%), phlebotomy (9%), and ruxolitinib (8%). Information on mutational analysis was also collected; 77% of patients have a known JAK2 V617F mutation, 3% have an MPL W515 mutation. Symptom Measures On the MPN-SAF TSS, the majority of individual symptoms assessed did not change significantly between the two assessment time points while on standard therapy. Notable exceptions were a significant decrease in weight loss (mean 2.0 vs. 1.7 on a 0=absent to 10=worst imaginable scale, p=0.005) and a significant worsening in quality of life (mean 3.6 vs. 3.8 on a 0=as good as it can be to 10=as bad as it can be scale, p=0.04). No changes were seen in other symptoms including early satiety, abdominal discomfort, night sweats, fatigue, inactivity, poor concentration, bone pain, itching, or fever. Similarly, the cumulative MPN-SAF TSS score remained stable at a mean of 24.4 over the treatment period. These findings were congruent with those observed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 instrument, with no significant changes seen in emotional, physical, role, cognitive, or social functioning. Finally, the MDASI also revealed a lack of change in either symptom severity (mean 2.7) or symptom distress (mean 3.0) scores, which remained stable over the study period. Discussion: Myeloproliferative neoplasms are associated with burdensome symptoms that significantly compromise quality of life. To date, no studies have quantified symptomatic response to standard-of-care treatments. Overall, results from the MEASURE study suggest that standard treatments have limited systematic impact on patient symptomatology over time, with no improvements in overall quality of life. However, we note the relatively low proportion of patients in this cohort treated with ruxolitinib, which has been shown previously to improve symptom burden, and this may have impacted the symptom responses seen in the group as whole; detailed responses by treatment and MPN subtype will be presented. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Dueck: Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment. Ross:BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding. Tam:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Travel funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other: Travel funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other: Travel funding. Radia:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Blueprint: Consultancy. Mesa:UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Celgene: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy.

Abstract 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 alfa 2b (P1101) at 50 ug every two weeks, and the dose was titrated up to either 300 ug every other week, or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were monitored for response based on international working group criteria. Results: Demographics: Eight patients with MF have been enrolled on the study to date (Early: 2, Int/High: 6). Median age was 69.5 (45 - 88), five patients were female. Five patients had primary MF (PMF) and 3 had post-essential thrombocythemia or post PV MF. Three patients had previous treatment for their disease. Four patients continue to receive active treatment (2 early disease, and 2 advanced disease), and for those who remain on treatment, they range from 7 - 29 cycles. Efficacy: Three patients experienced a clinical improvement (1 based on MPN-SAF total symptom score, and 2 based on reduction of spleen size). Both early stage patients have had a CI based on spleen responses as their best response and currently remain on treatment. The remaining 2 who are on therapy had stable disease. Those who remain on therapy have been receiving treatment for 7-29 cycles with continued response. Toxicity: A grade 3 adverse event (AE) potentially attributable to the treatment occurred in 4 patients (50%), 3 (37.5%) patients had anemia, and 2 (25.0%) patients had lymphopenia. Only one patient discontinued therapy due to AEs (dizziness, atrial fibrillation). Reasons for stopping include disease progression (1), toxicity (1) and lack of benefit (2). The median number of cycles for those who ended treatment was 8 (4-10). No deaths have occurred. Discussion: P1101 appears to be a well-tolerated therapy that has shown a durable clinical improvement in 37.5% in a small study. 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 P1101 in MF. Disclosures Palmer: Novartis: Research Funding. Zimmerman:PharmaEssentia: Employment. Zagrijtschuk:PharmaEssentia: Employment. Mesa:Gilead: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: PRM-151, a recombinant human pentraxin-2 molecule, has been shown to prevent and reverse fibrosis in animal models of myelofibrosis (MF) by postulated targeting differentiation of fibrocytes (essential cells in fibrotic process) from monocytes. In the first stage of a two-stage trial, 27 patients (pts) with primary myelofibrosis (PMF), post-essential thrombocythemia/polycythemia vera (post-ET/PV) MF, and Grade 2 or 3 bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) received PRM-151 10 mg/kg IV ± ruxolitinib (RUX) for 6 cycles (24 weeks). A reduction in BMF, decrease in symptoms (MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score [TSS]), and a reduction of palpable splenomegaly were observed, along with a favorable safety profile. Pts experiencing clinical benefit were allowed to continue beyond 24 weeks in an open label extension (OLE) study. Here, we report interim efficacy and safety data for 18 pts enrolled in the OLE, who had been treated for up to 35 cycles (140 weeks). Methods: All pts in the OLE received a monthly infusion of PRM-151 10 mg/kg IV. Pts receiving PRM-151 alone or in combination with RUX in the main study continued with their respective drugs. Safety and hematology parameters were assessed monthly, and MPN-SAF TSS Q3 months. BM biopsies were obtained at baseline, end of main study, and at physician discretion in the OLE. These were evaluated centrally by two independent, blinded hematopathologists for the degree of reticulin and collagen fibrosis. Immunostaining for fibrocytes was performed on available biopsies. The primary objective of the OLE was to assess safety and efficacy of long-term administration of PRM-151. Results: Of the 18 pts enrolled in the OLE, 9 received PRM-151 as single agent, and 9 in conjunction with RUX. Baseline characteristics included median age of 66 years (51-78); 8 pts were DIPSS Int-1, 9 Int-2, and 1 high-risk; 6 (33%) had Hgb < 100 g/L, 12 (67%) had PLT < 100 x 109/L; 7 (39%) had PLT <50 x 109/L; 8 pts had PMF, 10 had post-ET/PV MF; 13 pts (72%) had a palpable spleen, and 9 (50%) had Grade 3 BMF. Median time on study for these 18 pts was 30.9 months (15.9-47.2 months). All pts experienced at least 1 adverse event (AE), with 8 pts (44%) reporting a possible study drug-related AE. No unexpected AEs were observed, and no deaths were reported during the study period. The mean best percent change (by palpation) in spleen size from baseline was −37%, with a median percent reduction of −26.1% (Figure). The mean best percent improvement in MPN-SAF TSS was −54%, with a median percent reduction of TSS of −64%. Pts in the PRM-151 monotherapy group showed similar improvements in MPN-SAF TSS and splenomegaly as those receiving PRM-151 + RUX (Figure). Complete data on hematology parameters will be available at the time of presentation. Improvement in BM reticulin grade was observed in 5 of 7 pts (71%) with Grade 2 BMF at baseline, and in 4 of 9 pts (44%) with Grade 3 BMF at baseline. Of the pts with Grade 3 BMF at baseline, 2 of 9 pts (22%) had a 2-grade reduction (Table). In addition, 5 of 6 pts (83%) with Grade 2 collagen fibrosis at baseline had a 1-grade reduction, with 2 of 6 pts (33%) improving to Grade 0. Also, 2 of 7 pts (28%) with Grade 3 collagen fibrosis had a reduction of 1-grade with 1 of 7 (14%) improving to Grade 0 (Table). Eight of 18 pts had BM fibrocyte immunostaining done: mean fibrocyte count in the hematopoietic BM decreased from 378.0 ± 255.3 per mm2 (11.2 ± 7.7% of total cells) at study baseline to 81.3 ± 86.5 per mm2 (2.0 ± 2.1% of total cells; 7 of 8 pts evaluable) at cycle 25, with continuous reduction in fibrocyte numbers observed at interim. Over the same period, improvement in BM reticulin grade was detected in 4 of 7 pts (57%), and collagen fibrosis grade was decreased in 3 of 7 pts (43%). Conclusions: This long-term follow-up study of 18 pts with MF who received PRM-151 for a median of 31 months showed the drug to be well tolerated. An overall improvement in BM reticulin and collagen fibrosis grade, as well as reductions in MPN-SAF TSS and splenomegaly were observed. In a subset of pts for whom bone marrow fibrocyte immunostaining data were available, a mean reduction in fibrocyte counts was observed, as well as improved bone marrow reticulin and collagen fibrosis grade. These data warrant confirmation in a larger controlled study. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Verstovsek: Incyte: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pozdnyakova:Promedior, Inc.: Consultancy. Mesa:Promedior: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding. Foltz:Incyte: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Ritchie:Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ARIAD Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Palmer:Novartis: Research Funding. Kremyanskaya:Incyte: Research Funding. van den Blink:Promedior, Inc.: Employment. Gupta:Promedior, Inc.: Employment. Gotlib:Deciphera: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kartos: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.