Langlais, Blake

3590 Background: Co-occurring alterations (COAs) in the HER2 and MAPK pathway are rare in mCRC. RAS, HER2 and BRAF alterations have been associated with resistance to EGFR inhibitor therapy (EGFR-mab). Typical co-occurring mutually exclusive gene mutations such as in KRAS and BRAF have been reported. This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of co-occurring alterations in the MAPK pathway or across MAPK/ HER2 and correlate to outcomes in patients with mCRC treated with EGFR-mab. Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients with mCRC within the Mayo Clinic database who have available blood-based NGS Guardant 360 data (September 2017-November 2021) and contained co-alterations in the MAPK pathway or across MAPK/ HER2. MSI-high cases were excluded. Typical-RAS was defined as alterations in codons 12, 13, 59, 61, 117, and 146 of KRAS, HRAS, and NRAS. Atypical-RAS alterations were considered mutations at other codons of these genes. Patient characteristics, specific mutations, and outcome data were assessed. Results: 692 patients (pts) with mCRC were identified and 66 (9.5%) of those had COAs detected. 59/66 pts had clinical data available. Median age was 52 years, 55.9% were male, and 61.0% had left-sided tumors. The frequency of detected alterations was: BRAF-V600E (7.3%), BRAF-non-V600E (7%), BRAF-amplification (3.04%), RAS-typical (39.5%), RAS-atypical (2.1%), HER2 amp (0.5%), HER2-mutation (1.2%) and PIK3CA (13%). COAs are described in the table. Twenty-three pts received EGFR-mab; COAs developed in 19 of them after progression on EGFR-mab. Four pts received EGFR-mab with documented COAs at baseline with none of them responding to treatment. Conclusions: COAs in MAPK and MAPK/ HER2 pathway are not uncommon in pts with mCRC emphasizing on the importance and feasibility of blood based NGS vs. selected gene testing. In pts with prior EGFR-mab treatment, COAs were detected after progression on treatment in the majority of pts, suggesting a mechanism of secondary treatment resistance. Further data including prospective validation is warranted. [Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) can be curative for patients with hematologic malignancies. Despite optimization of supportive measures, the risk of non-relapse mortality is a particularly important consideration in older individuals. Sarcopenia, defined as low skeletal muscle mass, has been shown to be associated with decreased overall survival in cancer patients and may identify individuals at higher risk of treatment-related complications. Methods: Using Mayo Clinic Arizona's hematopoietic stem cell transplantation database, patients aged 60 years or older who underwent allo-SCT between 2008 and 2018 were identified. Patients who underwent abdominal computed tomography (CT) at our institution within 90 days prior to their transplant date were included in the study. The skeletal muscle area (SMA) was obtained using a fully automated algorithm for segmenting abdominal CT images to quantify body composition based on a deep learning approach (Weston et al., Radiology, 2019). The skeletal muscle index (SMI) was then calculated using the SMA and the subject's height at the time the CT was obtained. Sarcopenia was defined based on previously described consensus (Cruz-Jentoft et al., Age Ageing, 2010; Magudia et al., Radiology, 2021). T-tests and Fisher's exact tests compared patient characteristics between groups, where appropriate. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to construct survival times. Log-rank tests compared survival distributions and Cox proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios. Results: A total of 79 patients met inclusion criteria (Table 1). Of these, 50 (63%, n=50/79) had sarcopenia, and 29 (37%, n=29/79) had normal skeletal muscle mass. Among the sarcopenia group, 43 (86%, n=43/50) had SMI measurements. No differences were seen between groups in age at transplant, sex, Karnofsky performance scale, disease risk index, or conditioning regimen intent. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those with sarcopenia and those with normal skeletal muscle mass (log-rank p=0.18). Median survival was 3.3 years (95% CI: 0.8, not estimable (NE)) for those with sarcopenia and 3.6 years (95% CI: 1.3, NE) for those with normal skeletal muscle mass. Given the infrequency of events, the upper bounds of the median survival confidence intervals were not estimable. The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for sarcopenia versus normal skeletal muscle mass was 1.65 (95% CI: 0.79, 3.47; p=0.18). Males had a higher mean SMI than females, as expected (50.4 versus 37.5, p<0.001; mean difference 13.0, 95% CI: 8.9, 17.1). Without considering sex, higher or lower SMI was not associated with survival time in a Cox model in those with sarcopenia (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.92, 1.03; p=0.32). Sex alone was also not associated with any survival benefit among these 43 patients. After adjusting for the difference seen in SMI between sexes, on average, those with higher SMI were associated with a survival benefit (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.84, 0.99; p=0.039). This amounts to roughly an 8% reduction in hazard rate as SMI increased. Conclusions: The presence of sarcopenia alone was not associated with overall survival in patients 60 years and older undergoing allo-SCT for hematologic malignancy. Rating sarcopenia severity using SMI may assist in identifying high risk individuals with sarcopenia as lower sarcopenia severity was associated with improved overall survival. Further studies are warranted to explore the possible impacts of interventions directed at improving skeletal muscle mass on transplant-related outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Gaulin: DeciBio: Honoraria; Olson Research Group: Honoraria. Jain: CareDx: Other: for advisory board participation; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Syneos Health: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: for advisory board participation; Targeted Healthcare Communications: Consultancy. Palmer: PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protagonist: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: Bystander CPR (BCPR) increases survival from OHCA yet is provided in a minority of cases. The AHA has promulgated guidelines on the provision of pre-arrival Telephone CPR (TCPR) instructions and measurement to increase the proportion of BCPR; however, the impact of those guidelines on survival is unknown. Objective: To describe the impact of a comprehensive bundle of 9-1-1 TCPR protocol, training, data collection, and feedback on BCPR and survival from OHCA across the state of Arizona. Methods: 9-1-1 audio recordings of confirmed OHCAs and suspected OHCAs (10/2010-6/2013) in 7 large 9-1-1 centers were reviewed using a standardized time-stamp methodology linked with EMS and hospital process and outcome data. There were 2343 pre-implementation cases (P1) and 2291 cases post-implementation of a bundle of care (P2) that included staff training and guideline-based protocol changes, data collection and feedback to providers. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to assess outcomes between P1 and P2. Results: There were 2532 OHCAs [1232 P1, 1300 P2; 64% male, median age 62 (IQR: 47-74)]. 83% of cases were identified in P1 compared with 89% in P2 (p<0.001). The rate of telephone-assisted BCPR went from 44% in P1 to 62% in P2 (p<0.001). Time to beginning TCPR instructions decreased from a median of 144 sec (P1) to 126 in P2 (p<0.001). Time to first chest compression also decreased (P1: 178; P2: 155; p<0.001). Outcome data are currently available for 64% of confirmed OHCAs (1630 patient outcomes with 1619 neuro outcomes). Survival was significantly higher in P2 (11.2%) compared to P1 (7.9%; p=0.023), as was good neuro outcome (CPC-1 or 2: 7.7% P2 vs. 4.8% P1 p=0.018). After adjusting for witnessed arrest, shockable rhythms, age, and sex, both survival and good neuro outcome were still significantly higher in P2 vs. P1 [adjusted odds ratios: survival = 1.5 (95% 1.1-2.1); good neuro outcome = 1.7 (95% 1.1-2.6)]. Conclusion: The implementation of a comprehensive statewide TCPR bundle was associated with significant improvements in the rates of telephone-assisted BCPR, survival and good neurologic outcome after OHCA.

8569 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (atezolizumab or durvalumab) combined with platinum-etoposide is the standard first-line therapy for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The phase III clinical trials that led to the approval of chemoimmunotherapy in ES-SCLC, excluded patients with an Eastern Cooperative Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) of Two or Greater. Therefore, data on efficacy of this combination in this subgroup of ES-SCLC patients whose performance status two or greater is limited. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients diagnosed with ES-SCLC who received chemoimmunotherapy (atezolizumab or durvalumab) within the Mayo Clinic Health System between January 2016 and January 2021. Cases were identified from clinical databases at Mayo Clinic. Data on demographics, ECOG-PS, date of diagnosis, date of progression, whole brain radiation, CNS involvement, liver involvement, stereotactic body radiation, chest consolidation, platinum sensitivity, lines of therapy and last follow up date were extracted. Overall Survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) for ECOG-PS 2-3 were compared to patients with an ECOG-PS 0-1. Results: A total of 84 patients were identified with a median age of 68.2 (48-88) years old. Of these, 54 patients were identified with an ECOG-PS 0-1 and 30 patients with an ECOG-PS 2-3. The median PFS for the ECOG PS 0-1 cohort was 5.2 months (95% CI 4.6-6.1) while the median PFS for the ECOG-PS 2-3 cohort was 6.0 months (95% CI 4.2-7.7; logrank p = 0.93). The median OS for the ECOG-PS 0-1 cohort was 10.8 months (95% CI 8.5-12.9) while the median OS for the ECOG-PS 2-3 cohort was 10.3 months (95% CI 6.0-14.1; logrank p = 0.39). Hazard ratios of ECOG-PS 0-1 versus 2-3 showed no tendency of increased PFS or OS for either group within cox proportional hazards models. Forty-three percent of ECOG-PS 0-1 achieved a partial response (PR) and 57% of patients who had ECOG-PS 2-3 also achieved a PR (Fisher’s exact p = 0.23). A complete response was found in 4% of ECOG-PS 0-1 compared to 3% in the ECOG-PS 2-3 cohort. For patients who responded to initial therapy, 46% of ECOG-PS 2-3 patients had a platinum sensitive relapse while only 33% of ECOG-PS 0-1 were still platinum sensitive at the time of relapse. Five ECOG-PS 2-3 patients were able to receive a second-line therapy. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate chemoimmunotherapy in the subgroup of ES-SCLC patients with an ECOG-PS 2 or greater. This retrospective study demonstrated no significant difference in PFS, OS, and ability to achieve a least a PR in ECOG-PS 2-3 cohort when compared to ECOG-PS 0-1. Therefore, chemoimmunotherapy should not be reserved for only an ECOG-PS of 0-1 but should be considered for all treatment eligible patients.

e18612 Background: Effective communication of treatment tolerability data is essential for clinical decision making and improved patient outcomes, yet standardized approaches to the analysis and visualization of tolerability data in cancer clinical trials are currently limited. To address this need, the Standardization Working Group (SWG) was established within the NCI Cancer Moonshot Tolerability Consortium. This abstract describes the SWG’s initiative to develop a publicly accessible online toolkit with a comprehensive set of guidelines, references, and resources for graphical displays of tolerability data. Methods: A multidisciplinary group of PRO researchers including biostatisticians, clinicians, epidemiologists, and representatives from the NCI and FDA convened monthly to discuss toolkit development and content. Considerations for standardization of graphical displays of tolerability data included (1) types of graphical displays, (2) incorporation of missing data, (3) labeling and color schemes, and (4) software to produce graphical displays. For consistency, considerations of tolerability relied on the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE), which includes 124 items assessing the frequency, severity, interference, and/or presence of 78 symptomatic adverse events. Graphical displays were generated using simulated PRO-CTCAE data and summarized by composite score (range 0-3).Color schemes that were Section 508 compliant and color blindness accessible were created. Surveys were distributed to 68 consortium members to assess preferences and interpretability of the graphical displays. Results: The SWG created graphical displays for PRO-CTCAE data, including bar charts, butterfly plots, and Sankey diagrams and compiled SAS macros and R functions to do so. Graphical displays made available in the toolkit maximize the use of PRO-CTCAE data, incorporate missingness, support between-arm comparisons, and present data longitudinally over treatment cycles or study timepoints. Survey results for labeling and color schemes were summarized and informed a list of short labels for PRO-CTCAE items (e.g., “radiation burns” for “skin burns from radiation”) and standardized color schemes for use in graphical displays. Survey results were also summarized to provide insight into PRO researchers’ ability to accurately interpret the graphical displays. Conclusions: Standardizinggraphical displays is important for improving the communication and interpretation of tolerability data. The type of graphical display used depends on the purpose of the analysis and should be tailored to the intended audience, including patients. This toolkit will provide a comprehensive resource with best practice recommendations.

Background: The COVID pandemic has resulted in significant changes many aspects of daily living. To understand the impact that COVID-19 has had on the myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) patient population, we conducted an internet based survey. Methods: Survey: This survey was hosted Mayo Clinic's secured REDCap system for online surveys with a link to the survey alongside a brief description posted via the www.mpnqol.com website, as well as other MPN organizational partners. Survey responses were completely anonymous. Questions included MPN-Total symptom score (TSS), NCCN distress thermometer (NCCN-DT), questions regarding impact on medical care, and questions from CDC COVID-19 community survey question bank regarding the impact of social distancing as well as changes in health behaviors. Distress thermometer, MPN-TSS, and/or questions related to the impact of COVID-19 on MPN treatment were analyzed by: MPN diagnosis, among those with ET, PV, or MF diagnoses; medication status; stay at home order; community spread; and country. Associations were tested using Kruskal-Wallis or Wilcoxon rank sum tests (for continuous variables) or Fisher Exact tests (for categorical variables). Analysis: Results: Patient Demographics (Table 1): 1560 people responded to the survey, 1217 were eligible for analysis. Median age was 62 (range: 21-93), and 298 (24.6%) respondents were male. There were respondents from USA, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Ireland, and UK. 233 patients (19.2%) have myelofibrosis, 419 (34.6%) polycythemia vera and 543 (44.8%) essential thrombocythemia. At the time of the COVID outbreak, 1026 (84.3%) were on MPN directed medical therapy, including ruxolitinib (15.3%), interferon (14.7%), hydroxyurea (42.7%) and ASA (47.7%). 165 (13.6%) respondents received COVID testing, of which 5 had positive tests. Impact on MPN Care (Table 2): We sought to understand how patient's clinical care changed. Over half respondents who spoke to their MPN doctor had a telemedicine visit after COVID19 (57.1%). 422 (36.5%) patients spaced out visits, of which 99 (22.7%) felt there were consequences. A change in therapy due to COVID-1 occurred in only 5.4% of patients. MPN Symptom Burden and QoL: Data captured on the NCCN-DT had a median of 4 (0-10). MPN-SAF-TSS composite score was collected in 1150 respondents, median score was 26 (0-90). These scores are higher than those previously reported. Pandemic Impact on Lifestyle (Table 1): 595 (49.5%) of patients report living in a community where there is significant COVID-19 spread. 946 (78.9%) reported that COVID-19 has impacted their day to day life. 198 (17.2%) of patients agreed, or strongly agreed that COVID had a significant impact on their finances. 799 (67.8%) had a stay at home order. Of those who quarantined (112), the median duration was 30d (1-120). The majority of people increased hand-washing, and cleaning habits. 954 (81.7%) respondents reported wearing masks in public. 908 (76.8%) reported increased stress from social distancing. The majority of respondents report using healthy coping habits, such as reaching out to friends/loved ones, breathing and relaxation, as well as healthy diet. Less than 15% of patients report unhealthy coping strategies, such as use of opioids, benzodiazepines, alcohol, or cannabis Factors associated with response: There were no differences in responses based on type of MPN. If a patient was on medication, they were more likely to have spoken to their provider (p&lt;0.001). If there was a stay at home order in place, there was a higher MPN-TSS score (p&lt;0.001). If the respondent lived in an area of high community spread, they had a higher NCCN-DT score (p&lt;0.001). Patients in the USA had a higher NCCN-DT score (p=0.001), were more likely to stretch out the duration of time between visits (p&lt;0.001) and less likely to have a telemedicine visit (p&lt;0.001). Although fewer respondents in the USA thought COVID-19 was a serious disease (p=0.02), a higher percentage of respondents wore masks (p &lt;0.001). Conclusions: In our survey of MPN patients, there were many changes noted in clinical care. The use of telemedicine was common, and at least a third had significant changes in their care. Most experienced increased stress, however, employed healthy coping strategies. Only a minority of patients had a COVID test, and only 5 were positive, further data will be needed to understand the impact of COVID infection. Figure 1 Disclosures Harrison: Roche: Honoraria; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Promedior: Honoraria; Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI Biopharma Corp: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Pemmaraju:Affymetrix: Other: Grant Support, Research Funding; Plexxikon: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria; Roche Diagnostics: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; SagerStrong Foundation: Other: Grant Support; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MustangBio: Honoraria; LFB Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Pacylex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gupta:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol MyersSquibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy. Mascarenhas:Celgene, Prelude, Galecto, Promedior, Geron, Constellation, and Incyte: Consultancy; Incyte, Kartos, Roche, Promedior, Merck, Merus, Arog, CTI Biopharma, Janssen, and PharmaEssentia: Other: Research funding (institution). Shimoda:Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd.: Research Funding; Pfizer Inc.: Research Funding; Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Perseus Proteomics: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia Japan: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc.: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Merck & Co.: Research Funding; CHUGAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Shire plc: Honoraria; Asahi Kasei Medical: Research Funding; Japanese Society of Hematology: Research Funding; The Shinnihon Foundation of Advanced Medical Treatment Research: Research Funding. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Komatsu:AbbVie: Other: member of safety assessment committee in M13-834 clinical trial.; Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Shire Japan KK, Novartis Pharma KK, PharmaEssentia Japan KK, Fuso Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Fujifilm Wako Pure Chemical Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutica: Research Funding; Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd.: Patents & Royalties: PCT/JP2020/008434, Research Funding; PPMX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., PharmaEssentia Japan KK, AbbVie GK, Celgene KK, Novartis Pharma KK, Shire Japan KK, Japan Tobacco Inc: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Novartis Pharma KK, Shire Japan KK: Speakers Bureau. Abello:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gomez-Almaguer:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, 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, Speakers Bureau. Scherber:Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mauro:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Sun Pharma/SPARC: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding. Mesa:Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; LaJolla Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding.

Background Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are faced with severe disease-related fatigue among a range of other constitutional and spleen-related symptoms. The MPN-Symptom Assessment Form (SAF) is recommended for use to characterize symptom burden (Scherber R, et al. Blood 2011). Within the SAF, a profile of 18 symptom items are evaluated ranging in severity from 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable). The SAF is often summarized to the MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS) for analysis purposes - a single computed sum of the 10 most clinically meaningful symptom scores, including fatigue (Emanuel R, et al. J Clin Oncol 2012). Though the SAF includes a fatigue item, initial deployments of the MPN-SAF TSS incorporated a 0-10 scaled fatigue item taken from the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI; Mendoza T, et al. Cancer 1999). A subsequent version of the MPN-SAF TSS for use within myelofibrosis clinical trials (called the MFSAF v4; Gwaltney C, et al. Leuk Res 2017) employed a harmonized fatigue item. This analysis employing data from two studies was carried out to assess the use of the SAF fatigue item within the MPN-SAF TSS for consistency with the MFSAF v4. Methods Both BFI and SAF fatigue items were included in an initial online survey evaluating disease burden among patients with MPNs. Participants were assigned to survey variants as a function of their age. Survey variants included those to receive 1 instance of either the BFI or SAF fatigue item, instances of both BFI and SAF, or 2 instances of the same fatigue item. Surveying was aimed to assess the worst symptom experience in the patient's last 24 hours. Additionally, an independent survey assessing the impact of COVID-19 among MPN patients was deployed using the SAF fatigue item for the MPN-SAF TSS. This modified version was then used to test internal validity. Pearson correlation (r) and t-tests were used to assess association, Bland-Altman methods were used to evaluate systematic agreement between BFI and SAF fatigue scores, and Cronbach's alpha was used to measure internal consistency. Results There were 229 participants assigned both BFI and SAF fatigue items within the same survey. Among them, 51% (n=117) received the BFI item first and 49% (n=112) the SAF item first. No difference was seen between first and second fatigue scores (mean difference [first-second] = 0.00; 95%CI -0.18, 0.17). BFI and SAF fatigue scores were highly correlated (r=0.88, p&lt;0.001) and showed 88.7% agreement in categorizing severe versus non-severe fatigue (score ≥ 7 versus &lt; 7). Overall concordance in severity category was 73.4% (category [score range]: absent [0]; mild [1-3]; moderate [4-6]; severe [7-10]). Constructing the MPN-SAF TSS using the BFI and SAF fatigue components separately, the original and modified MPN-SAF TSS were nearly identical (r=0.997, p&lt;0.001), and had equivalent internal consistency (both Cronbach's alpha=0.88). The Bland-Altman plot further indicates the 2 fatigue measures have high agreement with no evidence of directional bias and negligible overall bias (Figure 1: regression slope = -0.04, p=0.25; mean difference=0.22; 95%CI 0.05, 0.39). Within the COVID-19 survey (n=1217), the modified version of the MPN-SAF TSS was consistent with known correlates among disease characteristics (Emanuel R, et al. J Clin Oncol 2012). For example, more severe MPN-SAF TSS scores were highly correlated with low quality-of-life (n=1156, r = -0.50, p&lt;0.001), and associated with those reporting spleen enlargement (n=301) versus not (n=617) (p&lt;0.001; mean difference=7.7; 95%CI 5.4, 10.1). Conclusion The BFI and SAF fatigue items are highly consistent in raw score, severity category, and in contribution to the MPN-SAF TSS. There was no order effect seen in which fatigue item was asked first. The independent COVID-19 survey using the modified MPN-SAF TSS was validated and shows high internal consistent. In the ongoing development to capture the symptom experience, this analysis shows disease-related fatigue is equivalently measured using the SAF fatigue survey item in harmonization with the MFSAF v4. Disclosures Mesa: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; LaJolla Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy.

Introduction: FDA approval of JAK2-inhibitors for myelofibrosis (MF) has changed the landscape for treatment introducing possible increased complexity of clinical trial designs in MF. Many patients with MF will have insufficient response or intolerance to ruxolitinib, opening an opportunity for testing of novel agents alone or in combination. Novel trial designs exist for early stage (phase 1 and 2) studies. The Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research Consortium (MPN-RC) is an NCI-funded academic group of laboratory and clinical scientists working to develop and evaluate treatments that will improve the survival of patients with MPNs focused on early stage trials in MF. This review was undertaken to understand the landscape of MF clinical trials and improve our approach to trial design. Methods: Studies with "myelofibrosis" as a condition were abstracted from clinicaltrials.gov using an application programming interface from 2010-2019 and reviewed for phase, trial design features, and endpoints. Trial design review captured such features as presence of dose escalation and approach (rule-based versus model-based/assisted) in the phase 1 setting. Observational and behavioral based studies were excluded. A total of 165 treatment interventional studies including MF patients (either MF as the primary cohort, or MF along with other MPN, myelodysplastic syndrome, or hematologic malignancies related cohorts) were reviewed. Primary and secondary endpoints were reviewed for quality of life, symptoms, or other patient-reported outcomes (PRO). Results: A median of 16.5 (range 13-20) trials were initiated per year; 92 (56%) phase 2, 54 (33%) phase 1; 17 (10%) phase 3 and 2 (1%) phase 4, with 77 (47%) industry sponsored (Figure 1). Among phase 1 trials, 41/54 (76%) included dose escalation, the majority employing a standard 3+3 design (or other rule-based design) or not specifically detailing the dose escalation schema. Less than 5 dose escalation trials were explicitly described as model-based or model-assisted. Almost half of the phase 1 trials (23/54; 43%) included combination treatment, with 17/23 (74%) using ruxolitinib or fedratinib. Among phase 2 trials, 82 (89%) were non-randomized and 10 (11%) randomized trials; 35/92 (38%) involved combination treatment and 57 (62%) single agent. Median actual/target enrollment for the phase 3 trials (n=16) was 192 patients (range 49-2233 patients); only 2 phase 3 trials were &gt; 500 patients. Median number of total outcomes was 6.0 (range 1-28) across all studies with a median of 5.5 (range 1-28) for 2010-2014 versus 7.0 (range 1-22) for 2015-2019 (p=0.09). Overall 63/165 (38%) studies included at least one PRO endpoint; 15 (28%) phase 1, 33 (36%) phase 2 and 14 (82%) phase 3. Inclusion of PRO endpoints for years 2010-2014 was similar to studies started in years 2015-2019 [31/82 (38%) and 32/83 (39%)]. Industry sponsored studies included PRO endpoints more frequently [46/77 (60%) versus 17/88 (19%); p&lt;0.001] than non-industry sponsored trials but this is primarily due to a higher proportion of phase 3/4 trials (n=17) being conducted by industry versus non-industry (n=2) (Figure 2). Conclusions: For phase 1 trials in MF, few dose-escalation trials included model-based or model-assisted methods. These designs are encouraged in order to maximize therapeutic benefits in MF, a rare cancer. Clinical trial designs in myelofibrosis have shifted in recent years as evidenced by an increase in number of endpoints, likely to accommodate new challenges in the post JAK2-inhibitors approval era. Use of patient-reported outcomes including quality of life and symptom assessment was high in the phase 3 setting, and continued use should be encouraged as endpoint assessments in MF clinical trial designs. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Celgene, Prelude, Galecto, Promedior, Geron, Constellation, and Incyte: Consultancy; Incyte, Kartos, Roche, Promedior, Merck, Merus, Arog, CTI Biopharma, Janssen, and PharmaEssentia: Other: Research funding (institution). Mesa:LaJolla Pharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Sierra Onc: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding. Hoffman:Dompe: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forbius: Consultancy; Protagonist: Consultancy.

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

AbstractMyeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are characterized by significant symptom burden. Integrative medicine (IM) offers unique symptom management strategies. This study describes IM interventions utilized by MPN patients and the association with symptom burden, quality of life, depression, and fatigue adjusted for lifestyle confounders. MPN patients were surveyed online for IM utilization, MPN symptom burden (MPN‐Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire), fatigue (Brief Fatigue Inventory), and a single question on overall quality of life. Measures were compared by IM participation and adjusted for alcohol and tobacco use, BMI, diet, and MPN type using multiple linear and logistic regression. A total of 858 participants were included in the analysis. Aerobic activity (p =< 0.001) and strength training (p = 0.01) were associated with lower mean symptom burden while massage (p =< 0.001) and support groups (p =< 0.001) were associated with higher levels of symptom burden. Higher quality of life was reported in massage (p = 0.04) and support groups (p = 0.002) while lower quality of life was noted in aerobic activity (p =< 0.001) and strength training (p = 0.001). A lower depression screening score was noted in those participating in aerobic activity (p = 0.006), yoga (p = 0.03), and strength training (p = 0.02). Lower fatigue was noted in those participating in aerobic activity (p =< 0.001) and strength training (p = 0.03) while higher fatigue was noted in those participating in massage (p =< 0.001) and breathing techniques (p = 0.02). Data available on request from the authors. This international survey of MPN patients on IM usage, has shown that patients who participated in a form of IM had a pattern of decreased levels of symptom burden, fatigue, depression, and higher QoL, as adjusted for health lifestyle practices overall.