Citations

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) suffer from difficult MPN associated symptoms which impact quality of life (QoL). The impact of initial cytoreduction on ET/PV symptoms, resulting toxicity and QoL have not been prospectively studied. Methods: MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) randomized 168 therapy-naive (hydroxyurea [HU] <3 mo) high risk ET/PV pts (<5 years of disease) to response adjusted pegylated interferon alpha 2a (PEG) or HU. MPN symptoms, in depth toxicity assessment, and QoL were measured by two symptom instruments (MPN-SAF, EORTC QLQ-C30: baseline,3, 6, 9, and 12 mo) and toxicity questions. Blinded response review by European Leukemia Net (ELN) hematological responses (HR) was conducted at 12 months. Individual time point and longitudinal group comparisons were based on mixed models adjusting for age. Results: Patients: Of 168 randomized pts (86 HU, 82 PEG), 164 (98%) completed the survey package at baseline and 151 (HU 83%; PEG 98%) completed at least 1 survey during treatment. Median age was 61 (range 18-87) with 70 (42%) females; 81 (48%) / 87 (52%) with ET / PV; 46 (27%) had a history of a thrombosis. 119 (71%) received prior HU (up to 3 months). Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms with the exception of age (median HU 63 vs. PEG 60 yrs; p=0.02). Baseline Symptom Burden /QoL: Mean MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS), scale 0 [absent]-100 [worst imaginable] was 15.8 (SD 12.6; range 0-62.0) with means of 15.1 (SD 12.6) / 16.5 (SD 12.6) for ET / PV which were slightly lower than reported means of a previous cohort receiving any line of treatment (Scherber RM, JCO 2012). Median number of moderate (defined as score >=3) symptoms in ET patients was 3.0 and PV 4.0. Most common moderate symptoms were fatigue (65.9%), insomnia (37.2%), numbness (33.5%) , itching (29.9%), dizziness (27.4%), early satiety (26.8%) , headache (23.2%), sad mood (23.2%), inactivity (22%), concentration (20.7%). 50.6% of patients had one or more symptom with a score >=6. Mean QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL (GHS/QoL) was 70.8 (SD 21.9) - comparable to a general population (mean 71.2, SD 22.4) and better than a general cancer population (mean 61.3, SD 24.2; QLQ-C30 Reference Manual 2008). At baseline, TSS, symptoms, and QoL were similar between treatment arms. In patients with TSS >20 at baseline (highly symptomatic, n=50; ET:20, PV:30), median TSS was 28.0 (range 20.0 to 62.0); the highest scored symptom was fatigue (median=7.0), itching (median=4.5) and insomnia (median=4.0). Impact of Therapy on Symptom Burden/QoL: On HU, pts experienced worsening QoL (physical, cognitive functioning, HRQoL) and some persistent or transient worsened symptoms (inactivity, concentration (p<0.05) (Table 1)). On PEG, pts experienced worsening of fever, dyspnea, appetite loss and PEG-related symptoms including flu-like symptoms, injection site irritation, blurry vision, and visual changes (all p<0.05), but not sad mood (not corrected for antidepressants). In comparing arms, change in TSS significantly differed (p=0.01) between arms with increasing symptoms on HU vs PEG at 3 and 6 mo, but lower symptom burden at 9 and 12 mos (Figure 1). In highly symptomatic pts (with a baseline TSS > 20, n=50), improvements in weight loss, abdominal discomfort, fatigue, itching, fever, early satiety (12 m.) were observed in pts on HU. For PEG, in highly symptomatic pts, improvements were observed for overall TSS score, fatigue, inactivity, night sweats, and itching (with similar toxicities to all PEG patients). ELN Response and Symptom Burden/QoL: Among the 133 pts with 12-mo symptom data, complete hematologic response (CHR) rate was 43%. Inactivity and sad mood were worse in those patient achieving a CHR (inactivity: CHR worsening 0.68 vs PHR/NR better 0.26; p=0.03; sad mood: CHR worsening 0.67 vs PHR/NR better 0.67, p=0.002)). These latter changes were not related to higher doses utilized (in either arm), suggesting obtaining CHR may have negative effects on patient symptoms. Conclusions:In pts with a significant baseline MPN symptom burden, cytoreductive therapy has both a beneficial impact on baseline MPN symptom burden but also leads to therapy associated toxicity, although different patterns of efficacy and toxicity between HU and PEG. Achievement of a CHR in PV/ET may be associated with higher rates of drug related toxicities, and the value of achieving CHR may need further validation. Disclosures Mesa: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Merck: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Rambaldi:Omeros: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Consultancy; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy. Yacoub:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Cara Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Ardelyx, INC.: Equity Ownership; Inycte: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Dynavax: Equity Ownership. Harrison:Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mead:Elstar: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Evotek: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Kessler:Sangamo: Research Funding; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dimension Advisory boards: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DSMB: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Biomarin: Research Funding. Kremyanskaya:Incyte: Research Funding. Rampal:Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Stemline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Hoffman:Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Formation Biologics: Research Funding; Summer Road: Research Funding. Dueck:Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment.

Abstract Background: The Philadelphia chromosome negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), including polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis (PMF), carry a propensity to evolve into an accelerated phase (MPN-AP, 10-19% blasts in the blood or marrow) and blast phase (MPN-BP, ≥20% in the blood or marrow). Such disease evolution carries a dismal prognosis with a median survival of 3-5 months, and thus the development of innovative treatment strategies represents an urgent unmet clinical need. Responses in patients with MPN-AP/BP to both hypomethylating agents and single-agent ruxolitinib (RUX) have been reported. In vitro, the combination of RUX and decitabine (DEC) are synergistically active in cells derived from patients with MPN-BP and from a murine model of MPN-BP. These observations led us to explore the safety of the combination in MPN-AP/BP in a phase I study. An MTD for RUX in combination with DEC 20mg/m2/d x 5 days was not reached in this study and the recommended Phase II dose of RUX was selected as 25mg BID for the first cycle of therapy followed by 10mg BID in subsequent cycles with a goal to minimize myelosuppression and maintain ambulatory administration (Rampal et al ASH 2016). Here we report the final results of the phase 2 combination of RUX + DEC in patients with MPN-AP/BP (NCT02076191). Methods: We conducted a multicenter, open label, phase II trial in patients with MPN-AP/BP, following a previous diagnosis of ET, PV or PMF. Patients enrolled were treated with the RPTD dose of RUX + DEC on a 28-day cycle until progression of disease, unacceptable toxicity or patient/physician withdrawal. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed using the NCI CTCAE v4.0. The primary endpoint was response rate by cycle 6 using modified Cheson criteria: CR required 0% peripheral blood blasts, ANC >1000/uL, 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 25 patients were accrued to study. The median age was 71 years (46.7-85.6). 10 patients (40%) had MPN-AP and 15 patients (60%) had MPN-BP. 6 patients (24%) had been previously been treated with single-agent RUX, and 2 patients (8%) had been treated with single-agent DEC. Median palpable spleen size was 7cm (range 0 - 20cm). The median number of cycles of treatment received on study was 4 (range 1 - 20). The most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs observed were pneumonia (16%), febrile neutropenia (16%) and infection (8%). The most common grade 3/4 hematologic AEs were anemia (16%), neutropenia (12%) and leukopenia (8%). The most common reasons for study discontinuation were AEs in 9 patients (36%), disease progression in 5 (20%) patients and hematopoietic cell transplantation in 2 (8%) patients. Eighteen (72%) patients were evaluable for response. The overall response rate (CR+CRi+PR) was 61% (11/18 patients). CRi was observed in 2 patients (11%), PR in 9 patients (50%) and no response in 7 patients (39%). The median time to CR/PR was 3.4 mos (95% CI: 2.1 - not estimated). The median peripheral blood blast count reduction was 80.1% (range 71.4-100%) (Figure 1A). The median reduction in spleen size by palpation was 70.5% (range 0-100%) (Figure 1B). Median overall survival for all patients was 7.6 months (95% CI: 4.3 - Not estimated); 9.7 months (95% CI: 4.3 - Not estimated) for MPN-BP and 5.8 months (95% CI: 3.6 - Not estimated) for MPN-AP (Figure 2). Three patients (17%) were able to proceed to HCT. The results of ongoing genomic, histopathologic and cytokine profiling studies will be available for presentation at the meeting. Conclusions: The combination of RUX+DEC has activity in patients with MPN-AP/BP. The drug combination is generally well tolerated and can be administered as an outpatient, a distinct advantage over intensive induction therapies that have not shown significant benefit in these patients. Additional work is ongoing to assess the genomic and clinical variables predictive of response with this combination therapy approach. Given the tolerability and efficacy, this regimen may be of particular benefit to patients who are not candidates for intensive therapies. Disclosures Rampal: Constellation: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Stemline: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mascarenhas:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Wang:Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Gerds:Celgene: Consultancy; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy. Heaney:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Blueprint: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Decipheral: Research Funding. Abboud:Agios: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kremyanskaya:Incyte: Research Funding. Odenike:ABBVIE: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI/Baxalta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotherapy Science: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Levine:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Epizyme: Patents & Royalties; Prelude: Research Funding; Qiagen: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Imago: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Consultancy; Isoplexis: Equity Ownership. Mesa:Novartis: Consultancy; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Dueck:Phytogine: Employment; Bayer: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria. Hoffman:Incyte: Research Funding; Formation Biologics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Summer Road: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: New targeted therapies continue to show improved efficacy in various stages of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), sparing patients from chemoimmunotherapy. However, cure remains elusive. Here, we present a front-line alternative based on a combination of high-dose methylprednisolone (HDMP) and ofatumumab, followed by consolidative therapy with lenalidomide plus ofatumumab. Methods: This is a phase II, single-center study in patients with treatment-naive (TN) CLL/SLL. During the first treatment phase (cycles 1-3) patients received HDMP 1000 mg/m2 IV and ofatumumab 2000 mg (300 mg given week 1 then 2000 mg for a total of 12 doses) IV infusions weekly x 4 doses in cycle 1 of a 28 day cycle, then every 2 weeks for cycles 2 and 3. During the second treatment phase (cycles 4-12), patients received renally adjusted lenalidomide 5-10 mg daily and ofatumumab 2000mg IV once every 8 weeks. Growth factor support was permitted at the discretion of treating physician. Prophylactic medications included allopurinol for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) 3 days before C1D1 through C1; and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluconazole through cycle 4, and acyclovir through C12. Patients received aspirin 81 mg/day as thrombosis prophylaxis while on lenalidomide. Patients were assessed for response by iwCLL 2008 criteria (including imaging assessment) after completion of cycles 3 and 12. The study allowed continuation of lenalidomide if patients achieved complete (CR), partial (PR) response or stable disease (SD). Primary endpoints were efficacy, adverse events (AEs) profile, and time-to-treatment failure (TTF). Results: Between January 2012 and September 2015, the study enrolled a total of 45 patients. Median follow-up was 50.4 (5.6-72.8) months. The median age was 62.6 (48.2-86.1) years. Chromosomal analysis by FISH demonstrated Del17p in 8 (17.8%), Del11q (+/- others, except Del17p) in 10 (22.2%), Trisomy 12 (+/- others, except Del17p and Del11q) in 8 (17.8%), Del13q in 10 (22.2%), no mutations in 9 (20%) patients. The IGHV status was unmutated in 34 (75.6%) cases. Indications to start treatment were: symptomatic lymphadenopathy, symptomatic splenomegaly, anemia, and thrombocytopenia in 5 (11.1%), 10 (22.2%), 12 (26.7%), and 18 (40%), respectively. The median duration of treatment was 35.6 (2.7-66.9) months. Reasons for treatment discontinuation were: progressive disease (PD) in 9 (20%), AEs in 15 (33.3%), transplantation in 3 (6.7%), consent withdrawal in 1 (2.2%), and secondary malignancies in 2 (4.4%) cases. The overall response rates (PR+CR) at 3, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months were 75.6%, 77.8%, 66.7%, 44.4%, and 37.8%, respectively. The CR rates at 3, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months were 2.2%, 11.1%, 20%, 17.8%, and 13.3% respectively. Fifteen patients remain in PR/CR and on treatment at the time of this analysis. The intention-to-treat median TTF was 45.2 (2.9-69.7) months, and was not different among high risk groups such as Del17p, Del11q and/or unmutated IgHV. In patients who discontinued for reasons other than PD the median duration of response without treatment was 30.7 (9.8-69.7) months. Three (6.7%) patients underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation after a median of 3 (3 - 4) treatment cycles. Treatment was well tolerated with grade 3/4 infusion reaction in 1 (2.2%) patient. Grade 3/4 treatment-related hematological AEs were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia in 33 (73.3%), 5 (11.1%), and 1 (2.2%), respectively. Grade 3/4 infections occurred in 6 (13.3%) patients. No grade 3/4 tumor flares were observed, and there were no cases of TLS or thrombosis. Conclusion: The combination of ofatumumab, HDMP and lenalidomide is effective and well tolerated in treatment-naive CLL/SLL, even when poor prognostic features are present. Disclosures Komrokji: Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Locke:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Other: Scientific Advisor. Kharfan-Dabaja:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corp: Speakers Bureau; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Sokol:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction HU is the treatment of choice for patients (pts) with high risk ET/PV, however, PEG has been proposed as an alternative option due to its proposed potential to modify disease course. An interim analysis of MPN-RC 112 (Blood 2016 128:479;) did not reveal a difference in PR/CR rates between HU and PEG therapy after 12 months in the first evaluable 75 pts treated. Here we present the results and long-term follow-up of all pts participating in this pivotal study [NCT01259856]. Methods MPN-RC 112 was a randomized, open label, phase 3 clinical trial comparing HU and PEG in pts with high risk ET/PV. Pts were treated for up to 12 months to achieve PR or CR (ELN/IWG-MRT response criteria). Pts who achieved a PR/CR continued therapy for up to a maximum of 6 years. Minimum follow up was 1 year from the time the last pt was randomized. The primary objective was to compare the CR rate following HU vs. PEG at 12 months with 3 month confirmation. Secondary objectives included a comparison of toxicity and tolerability; PR rates; incidence of specific pre-defined toxicities and tolerance to therapy; impact of therapy on key biomarkers; survival and incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome, myelofibrosis, or leukemic transformation; and incidence of major cardiovascular events. Bone marrow pathologic responses were evaluated by central blinded expert review at baseline, 12, 24 months and end of study. Results The study accrued 168 pts; 86 were randomized to HU and 82 to PEG. A summary of pt baseline characteristics by treatment arm is shown in Table 1 and were well balanced between the treatment arms except for median age which was higher in the HU arm (p=0.02). Median duration of follow up was 89.9 weeks (range, 0 to 292.3) and the median treatment duration was 86.0 weeks (range, 0 to 287.3). At 12 months, the overall response rate (ORR= PR+CR) was 69.8% and 78% for HU and PEG, respectively (p=0.22). Figure 1 shows the distribution of responses stratified by disease type. At 24 months, 59 pts were on treatment with an ORR of 22/25 (88%) for HU and 31/34 (91%) for PEG. When considering all 106 pts who were eligible to receive treatment for 24 months (due to study closure), the ORR was 22/54 (40.7%, PR: 11 (20.4%), CR: 11 (20.4%)) for HU and 31/52 (59.6%, (PR: 15 (28.9%), CR: 16 (30.8%)) for PEG, p=0.04. Best ORR at any time on study was seen in 70.9% and 81.7% of HU and PEG treated pts, respectively, p=0.10. The median maximum change from baseline spleen volume was -6% (-100.0 - +53.8) in 112 evaluable pts and was similar between arms, p=0.99. Bone marrow morphologic responses are shown in Table 2 and the best response (CR) seen at any time on study for ET treated with HU was 52% (12/23) vs PEG 32% (8/25) and for PV treated with HU 19% (6/31) vs PEG 6% (2/34). Cytogenetic analyses at diagnosis were available in 86% (144/168). An abnormal karyotype was seen in 15% (22/144). Five PV and one ET pt lost their chromosomal abnormalities: 3 after one year (HU=1, PEG=2) and three after two years of therapy (HU=2, PEG=1). AE information is available for 162 pts (HU: 80; PEG: 82) (Table 3). Six pts randomized to HU never received treatment due to study withdrawal prior to initiation of treatment. Sixty pts had a grade 3 or higher event [HU: 22 (27.5%) and PEG: 38 (46.3%)]. 28 PV pts had a grade 3/4 [HU: 10 (24.4%) and PEG: 18 (41.9%)]. Four pts had a grade 4/5 event [HU: 3 (7.3%) and PEG: 1 (2.3%)]. 32 ET pts had a grade 3/4 [HU:12 (30.8%) and PEG:20 (51.3%)]. Two pts had a grade 4/5 event [HU:1 (2.6%), PEG:1 (2.6%)]. Additional outcomes of interest on study include one death attributed to new diagnosis of lung cancer (HU:1), progression to myelofibrosis (HU:1), vertebral artery occlusion (HU:1), and cerebral vascular accident (PEG:1). Reasons for study discontinuation are shown in Table 4. The effect of therapy on symptom burden and quality of life will be presented in a companion abstract (Mesa et al). The impact of mutation status on therapeutic outcome as well as the molecular responses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion The final analysis of MPN-RC 112 revealed that the CR rates in pts with high risk ET/PV treated with PEG and HU at 12 and 24 months were similar. PEG was associated with a higher rate of grade 3/4 toxicity. Each drug appeared equally capable of modifying the natural history of high risk ET/PV based upon their effects on spleen size, karyotypic abnormalities, histopathological parameters and the low incidence of thrombotic complications and disease evolution in both arms. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Novartis: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Rambaldi:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Harrison:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mead:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Elstar: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy; Evotek: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy. Kessler:Genentech: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biomarin: Research Funding; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DSMB: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dimension Advisory boards: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kremyanskaya:Incyte: Research Funding. Rampal:Stemline: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Mesa:CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. Dueck:Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment. Hoffman:Incyte: Research Funding; Formation Biologics: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Summer Road: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 4804 Background: Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is one of the classic myeloproliferative neoplasms characterized by a reciprocal translocation of BCR and ABL t(9;22)(q34;q11). Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have revolutionized the management of CML in inducing rapid and prolonged responses. However; clonal evolution (CE) is considered a poor prognostic factor and a criterion for accelerated phase (AP) CML by the World Health Organization (WHO). Deletion of chromosome Y (−Y) is frequently considered an age-related abnormality and the exact prognostic value has not yet been determined. Aim: To determine if –Y carries an impact on the clinical outcome of male pts with CML. Methods: All male patients diagnosed with chronic phase CML in our institution between 1993 and 2011 were screened for -Y. Data were collected in a retrospective manner and compared (using t-test) to male patients with sole BCR-ABL translocation after excluding patients with advanced stages (accelerated phase, blast phase). Demographics, laboratory tests, cytogenetic analysis, molecular testing and survival data were abstracted. Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival were used via JMP software v9.0. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained for this study in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. Results: 20 of 162 (12%) males with CML were found to have –Y abnormality (group 1). CML male patients with sole Philadelphia chromosome abnormality were the control cohort (group 2). In group1; the median age was 57 years, BMI 27.7, hemoglobin 12.2 g/dL, white blood cell count (WBC) 32.8 x109/L, platelet 270 x109/L, and peripheral blood blasts 1%. Sokal risk was low in 30%, intermediate in 65% and high in 5% of pts. Nine pts (45%) were treated with interferon (IFN) prior to TKI. In group 2; the median age was 54 years, hemoglobin 12 g/dL, WBC 57 x109/L, and platelet 282 x109/L. Sokal risk was low in 37%, intermediate in 47%, and high in 16%. 46 of 142 patients (32%) had received previous interferon therapy. All patients in both groups had chronic phase CML at the time of diagnosis, with a median bone marrow cellularity of 95%. In group 1, 14 of 20 pts (70%) received imatinib, all of whom achieved a complete hematological response (CHR), 7 of 14 pts (50%) had partial cytogenetic response, 2 of 14 pts (14%) achieved a complete cytogenic response (CCyR);1 (7%) pt achieved CCyR within 12 months and an additional 1 (7%) by 18 months). Two pts of 12 (16%) achieved at least a major molecular response (MMR); one of whom (8%) achieved a complete molecular response (CMR). In comparison, 107of 142 pts (75%) in group 2 received imatinib, all of whom achieved CHR. Twenty-one pts (20%) achieved partial cytogenetic remission. CCyR was more frequently achieved than group 1 (48/107 pts (45%), p 0.026); 24 pts (22%) achieved CCyR within 12 months of therapy and an additional 10 pts by 18-months. MMR and/or CMR was higher in group 2 compared to group 1 (34 /101 (34%), p 0.18); 16 (16%) of which were CMR. In group 1; 6 (30%) pts had disease progression; 4 of 20 pts (20%) progressed to blast phase (BP) and 2 pts (10%) progressed to AP, compared to 32 (22%) pts in group 2 (p 0.17); 22 (15%) of whom progressed to BP and 10 (7%) patients progressed to AP. Median overall survival was 110 months in group 1 compared to 155 months in group 2 (log rank p=0.48). On multivariate analysis, CCyR was an independent factor for a better OS (p 0.03), but not –Y (p 0.7). Conclusion: Loss of the Y chromosome in chronic myelogenous leukemia is an infrequent phenomenon (12%). Although patients with –Y had a statistically significant less chance to achieve CCyR, loss of the Y chromosome did not affect the progression rate or overall survival. Larger scale studies are needed to confirm our observations Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing HSCT are reported to have a high prevalence of depression and anxiety. These comorbid mood disorders have been known to be associated with alteration in pain perception in patients without hematological malignancies. Pharmacological compounds such as opioid and benzodiazepines are frequently used to manage patient symptomology including pain and anxiety. Patients undergoing HSCT are a unique population where the impact of depression and anxiety on opioid and benzodiazepine use has not been well studied. METHODS: The study population consisted of patients who underwent HSCT at a single center for a variety of hematological malignancies from 2015-2018. Opioid and benzodiazepine exposure and dosage was defined in a) Patients who were exposed to opioid including those who were previously exposed and those who were exposed during hospitalization for HSCT b) Patients who were neither exposed to opioid previously, nor during the hospitalization for HSCT. Depression and Anxiety was defined as per PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scales prior to hospital admission. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify differences in opioid status, previous benzodiazepine use, transplant type, Karnofsky score, gender, age, race, and marital status with associated Diazepam Equivalent Daily Dosage (DEDD) (Negative Binomial Regression), and Morphine Milligram Equivalent Daily Dosages (MMEDD) (Logistic and Zero Truncated Negative Binomial Regression). RESULTS: A total of 275 patients underwent HSCT including autologous and allogeneic from 2015-2018. Anxious or depressed HSCT recipients had an increased incidence of higher DEDD with an IRR of 1.69 (95% CI: 1.15, 2.49) compared to those who were neither depressed nor anxious (Figure 1). However, patients who reported anxiety and depression did not have a different DEDD than those not anxious nor depressed. In addition, patients who were not naïve to benzodiazepine use prior to admission had an increased incidence of a higher DEDD [IRR of 2.23 (95% CI: 1.61, 3.05)]. Patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplant had a decreased incidence of receiving a higher DEDD [IRR of 0.65 (95% CI: 0.47-0.90)]. African American and other populations had a decreased incidence of receiving a higher DEDD [IRR of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.27, 0.59)]. Patients receiving higher MMEDD had a higher DEDD incidence [IRR of 1.01 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.02)]. Patients who were both anxious and depressed had increased odds of receiving an opioid [OR of 3.35 (95% CI: 1.62, 6.94)] compared to patients who were neither depressed nor anxious. However, patients who were either depressed or anxious did not have different odds of receiving an opioid compared to those who were neither depressed nor anxious. Patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplant had reduced odds of receiving an opioid [OR of 0.17 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.40)]. Patients with less than normal Karnofsky performance status (<90 on scale of 1-100) had an increased incidence of receiving a higher MMEDD [IRR of 2.34 (95% CI: 1.07, 5.12)] when modeled by Zero Truncated Negative Binomial Regression. Finally, HSCT recipients who were both anxious and depressed had reduced odds of being naïve to opioids [OR0.31 (95% CI: 0.15, 0.67)] compared to recipients who were neither depressed nor anxious. New opioid users had reduced odds of receiving a greater MMEDD [OR of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.99)] when compared to previous users. In addition, autologous stem cell transplant recipients had reduced odds of receiving greater MMEDD compared to allogeneic transplant recipients (OR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.66). CONCLUSION: Comorbid depression and /or anxiety impact opioid and benzodiazepine use in patients undergoing HSCT. The presence of these comorbid conditions and their association with increased use of opioids and benzodiazepines can also affect various health related outcomes. Larger studies are needed to fully understand the potential impact of this association on health related outcomes. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Kharfan-Dabaja: Incyte Corp: Speakers Bureau; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Ailawadhi:Amgen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction Few treatments options are available for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have previously been treated with lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT), and their prognosis is poor. Pomalidomide (POM) is a distinct IMiD® immunomodulatory agent with a mechanism of action consisting of direct anti-myeloma, stromal-support inhibitory, and immunomodulatory effects. In randomized phase 2 and 3 trials (MM-002 and MM-003), POM plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDEX) demonstrated marked efficacy in RRMM pts who had received multiple prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. This side-by-side analysis presents the most recent survival and safety data from these trials. Methods The MM-002 and MM-003 trials enrolled pts with ≥ 2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. In MM-002, pts received POM (4 mg/day on days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle) alone or in combination with LoDEX (40 mg/week). In MM-003, pts were randomized 2:1 to receive POM+LoDEX or high-dose DEX alone (HiDEX) (40 mg/days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20 in a 28-day cycle); HiDEX was chosen as the comparator to isolate the effects of POM, as at the time of trial design it was the standard salvage therapy for heavily pretreated pts. Thromboprophylaxis was required for all pts treated with POM and pts at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism. Data cutoff was February 1, 2013 for MM-002 and March 1, 2013 for MM-003. The primary endpoint in both trials was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rates, duration of response, and safety. Results In each study, pts had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range 1-17), and all pts had received prior LEN and BORT. In MM-002, 113 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 108 were treated with POM alone (60% of POM alone pts subsequently received DEX). A total of 79% of pts were LEN refractory; 62% were refractory to both LEN and BORT; and 35% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. With a median follow-up of 14.2 months (mos), median PFS was 4.2 mos, OS was 16.5 mos, and overall response rate (ORR, defined as at least a partial response) was 33% with POM+LoDEX (Table 1). In MM-003, 302 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 153 pts were treated with HiDEX (50% of HiDEX pts subsequently received POM). A total of 94% of pts were LEN refractory; 74% were both LEN and BORT refractory; and 29% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. Survival outcomes were similar in MM-003; with a median follow-up of 10 mos, median PFS was 4.0 mos, OS was 12.7 mos, and ORR was 31% with POM+LoDEX. In both trials, LEN as last prior therapy did not impact response, PFS, or OS vs the overall population. Commonly observed adverse events (AEs) are presented in Table 2 for pts treated with POM+LoDEX. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was 28% and 13% in MM-002, and 26% and 22% in MM-003 for the POM+LoDEX arms, respectively. AEs were generally manageable for POM+LoDEX in MM-002 and MM-003 with dose interruptions (67% for both) and reductions (29% and 26%, respectively), and standard supportive care, including growth factor support (46% and 43%), red blood cell transfusions (45% and 49%), platelet transfusions (14% and 20%), and anti-infective agents (89% in both trials). Rates of POM discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs were low (2–4% with POM+LoDEX). In MM-002 and MM-003, 49% and 51% of pts in the POM+LoDEX arms experienced neutropenia of any grade. With appropriate AE management, 9% and 23% had dose interruptions, 4% and 8% had dose reductions, and 1 pt in both MM-002 and MM-003 discontinued due to neutropenia. Febrile neutropenia developed in 3% and 10% of pts; 1% and 4% had dose interruptions, 0% and 2% had dose reductions, and no pts discontinued due to febrile neutropenia in the MM-002 and MM-003 studies, respectively. The majority of infections occurred in the absence of neutropenia of any grade (54% in MM-002 and 66% in MM-003). The rate of POM discontinuation due to infection was low (1% in MM-002 and 2% in MM-003). Conclusion In both the MM-002 and MM-003 trials, POM+LoDEX consistently extended PFS in advanced RRMM pts. PFS, OS, and ORR were not negatively impacted in patients who were refractory to LEN or BORT, even as last prior therapy. Both trials demonstrated that with dose modifications and supportive care POM was well tolerated, leading to few discontinuations. POM+LoDEX should be considered a standard of care for pts with advanced RRMM who have exhausted LEN and BORT. Disclosures: Siegel: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Richardson:Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dimopoulos:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Song:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Baz:Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Hofmeister:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jagannath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Delforge:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad, Sanofi, Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Ariad, BMS, Sanofi, INCYTE: Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Jansen, Celgene Corporation, Onyx, Novartis, Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karlin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Expert board committee Other, Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Oriol:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Alegre:Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martinez-Lopez:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Casey:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Onyx: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Gilead: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; sanofi aventis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Oncopep: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Background MF, PV, and ET are neoplasms characterized by activation of JAK2 signaling, and the majority of cases are associated with the gain of function JAK2 V617F mutation. Given that wild-type JAK2 plays a pivotal role in multiple stages of hematopoiesis it is desirable to treat JAK2V617F-positive cases by selectively inhibiting JAK2 V617F while minimizing inhibition of wild-type JAK2 in order not to impede normal marrow function. LY2784544 is a selective inhibitor of JAK2 which demonstrates dose dependent selectivity for JAK2 V617F/STAT5 signaling. LY2784544 entered clinical testing in a Phase I trial in MF, PV, and ET patients (I3X-MC-JHTA, NCT01134120). We have previously reported early interim analysis from this study and provide here an update following completion of study enrollment. Methods The study’s primary objectives were to determine the safety and tolerability of LY2784544 and define a recommended oral daily dose for further study in patients with JAK2 V617F-positive MF, ET, or PV. Secondary objectives included determination of pharmacokinetics and evaluation of response using the IWG-MRT response criteria (2006), European Leukemia Net response criteria for PV and ET (EULN 2009), and symptom burden using the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) (Scherber et. al. Blood 2011). Study design included a standard 3+3 dose-escalation to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and was amended to allow cohort expansions at multiple doses demonstrating potential clinical merit. Results Patients Prior to closing to enrollment, 47 patients were consented; 9 did not meet eligibility screening. The 38 treated patients included 31 MF (22 pMF, 6 post-PV MF and 3 post-ET MF), 6 PVs, and 1 ET patient(s), and 86% had received prior systemic therapy for their MPN. Dosing and tolerability of LY2784544: Systemic exposures were approximately dose proportional across the tested range from 30 to 300 mg. Daily doses of 200 mg or greater were associated with CTCAE Grade 3 increases in serum creatinine. In general, increases in serum creatinine occurred within the first 2 weeks of either starting treatment or after an increase in study drug dose. With the available data, the elevations in serum creatinine appear to be fully reversible after dose reduction or drug holiday in the majority of patients. The maximum tolerated daily dose of LY2784544 when given on a continuous daily basis was determined to be 120 mg per day. Serious AEs, across all grades and doses, included increased creatinine/acute renal insufficiency (4 grade 3, 5 grade 2, 1 grade 1), hyperuricemia (2 grade 4, 1 grade 1), hyperkalemia (1 grade 1), and anemia (1 grade 3). This study allowed intrapatient dose escalation, and 34 patients received 120 mg during their study participation. There were 4 patients dosed at 120 mg with SAEs but all were unrelated to study drug treatment (anemia, influenza, enterococcal bacteremia, hematuria and pneumonia). At 120 mg, the most frequently reported drug-related AEs across all grades were diarrhea (44%), nausea (29%), increased creatinine (21%), and anemia, vomiting, fatigue (9% each). Of these related AEs at 120 mg, there was 1 Grade 3 anemia, 3 Grade 3 increased creatinine, and 2 Grade 3 fatigue. There were no Grade 4 AEs. Efficacy Among a cohort of 10 MF patients who only received 120 mg, 3 achieved a clinical improvement. Analyzing across dose levels, a palpable spleen length reduction of ≥50% was seen in 15 of 27 evaluable patients (56%) at any time. The median duration of these responses was 18.3 weeks (range from 0.7 to 148.1 weeks). At 12 weeks, 56% of patients (15/27) reported a ≥50% improvement in Total Symptom Score on the MPN-SAF. Of the 6 PV patients, 3 achieved a clinicohematologic PR. Findings from a central pathology review of serial bone marrow samples will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions A recommended phase II dose for daily dosing of LY2784544 was identified as 120 mg. This dose has been well tolerated and associated with clinical improvements, supporting ongoing Phase II testing of LY2784544 in MPNs. Disclosures: Verstovsek: Eli Lilly and Co: Research Funding. Mesa:Eli Lilly and Co: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; NS pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Salama:Eli Lilly and Co: Research Funding. Giles:Eli Lilly and Co: Employment. Pitou:Eli Lilly and Co: Employment. Hayden Zimmermann:Eli Lilly and Co: Employment. Price:Eli Lilly and Co: Employment. Walgreen:Eli Lilly and Co: Employment. Prchal:Eli Lilly and Co: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 1881 Background: Drug-disease modeling and simulation has recently been proposed to support drug development decisions in patients with liquid and solid tumors (Claret et al J Clin Oncol, 27:4103-4108, 2010; Wang et al. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 86:167-174, 2009). We hypothesized that similar modeling based on a decrease in M-protein may be applied in multiple myeloma. The objective was to use a modeling and simulation approach to leverage available lenalidomide multiple myeloma data and support pomalidomide development decisions by, 1) developing a drug-independent link between tumor burden reduction (as assessed by change from baseline in serum M-Protein) and survival and PFS and 2) simulating expected survival and PFS based on interim M-protein data of the phase 1/2 trial (CC-4047-MM02, NCT00833833) of pomalidomide (POM) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least 2 prior therapies including lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib. Methods: M-Protein measurements were modeled as a function of time from 704 patients included in two phase 3 clinical studies of LEN plus dexamethasone (DEX) vs. DEX (MM010, Dimopoulos, NEJM 357, 2123–2132, 2007 and MM009, Weber, NEJM 357, 2133–2142, 2007). Models were developed for survival and PFS times as a function of change in M-protein level at end-of-cycle 2 (week 8) from baseline as well as other prognostic factors. Interim M-protein data from the ongoing MM-002 POM study (217 patients) were modeled to simulate clinical endpoints. Results: Based on lenalidomide Phase 3 data, week-8 change in M-Protein (p < 0.00001), ECOG performance status (p < 0.0009), baseline albumin, hemoglobin and creatinine levels (p < 0.01) were significant independent predictors of survival when week-8 change in M-Protein (p < 0.00001) and baseline hemoglobin (p < 0.001) were significant independent predictors of PFS. Observed survival and PFS distributions over 100 weeks in lenalidomide studies and difference between the two treatments (LEN + DEX vs. DEX) were consistent with the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the models. Model predictions (95% PIs) of median survival and PFS based on week-8 change in M-Protein following treatment with POM and POM + DEX are presented in the table below. The recently disclosed observed medians and 95% CIs for all endpoints and all arms from MM-002 are included in the model. Conclusions: Change in M-protein level as a continuous longitudinal biomarker appears to be a potential indicator to assess drug effect in multiple myeloma studies using modeling and simulation based on early interim data. PFS predicted by the model and the actual PFS are similar and thus may support end-of-Phase 2 decision (Bruno et al Clin Pharmacol Ther 86:136-138, 2009). Current simulations indicate encouraging results for POM in a refractory multiple myeloma patient population who have received prior treatment that includes lenalidomide and bortezomib but these exploratory methods require confirmation as part of ongoing studies. Disclosures: Bruno: Pharsight: Employment; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide is not an FDA licensed product for multiple myeloma treatment. Jonsson:Pharsight: Employment; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Jacques:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Swern:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Richardson:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Claret:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharsight: Employment.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) suffer from disease related events linked to risk of vascular events, splenomegaly, progression to myelofibrosis/acute leukemia, and disease related symptoms arising from both elevated cytokines and issues of vascular flow. Impact of front line therapy on ET/PV symptoms has not been reported in a systematic fashion. Methods: MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) enrolled cytoreductive therapy naïve (hydroxyurea [HU] <3 mo) pts with high risk ET or PV within 3 years of diagnosis. Pts were randomized (1:1, stratified by ET vs PV) to either response adjusted pegylated interferon alpha 2a (PEG) or HU. MPN symptoms, treatment toxicities, and quality of life (QoL) were measured by the MPN-SAF and EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 mo. PEG related toxicities were assessed with 5 questions on PEG arm only. European Leukemia Net (ELN) complete hematological responses (CHR) at 12 mo were determined by central blinded review. Individual time point and longitudinal group comparisons were based on mixed models adjusting for age. T-tests were used to compare change scores at 12 mo between pts with and without CHR. Results: Patients: MPD-RC 112 enrolled 168 pts from 9/2011 to 7/2016, with 75 pts included in the interim analysis. 73 (97%; HU 37, 95%; PEG 36, 100%) completed surveys at baseline of which 66 (90%; HU 30, 81%; PEG 36, 100%) completed at least 1 survey during treatment. Median age was 60 (range 19-84) with 32 (44%) females; 30 (41%) / 43 (59%) with ET / PV; 19 (26%) had a history of thrombosis; and 16 (22%) had palpable spleen. Baseline characteristics where balanced between arms with the exception of age (median age: HU 66, PEG 54; p<0.001). Baseline Symptom Burden/QoL: Mean MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS, scale 0 [absent]-100 [worst imaginable]) was 15.4 (SD 12.5; range 0-52.2) with means of 12.6 (SD 11.7) / 17.3 (SD 12.7) for ET / PV which were somewhat better than reported means of a previous cohort receiving any line of treatment (ET mean 18.7, SD 15.3; PV mean 21.8, SD 16.3; Emanuel RM, JCO 2012). Symptoms (scale 0 [absent]-10 [worst imaginable]) with the highest prevalence (score >0) included fatigue (65/73, 89%) and insomnia (47/73, 64%). The symptom with the lowest prevalence was fever (8/72, 11%). Mean QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL (GHS/QoL) was 73.3 (SD 19.1) which is comparable to a general healthy population (mean 71.2, SD 22.4) and better than a general cancer population (mean 61.3, SD 24.2; QLQ-C30 Reference Manual 2008). TSS, symptoms, and QoL did not differ between arms. Impact of Therapy on Symptom Burden/QoL: On HU, pts initially experienced worsening of TSS, fatigue, early satiety, itching, bone pain, and fever (all p<0.05) with some symptoms returning to baseline after 6 mo (Table 1). On PEG, pts experienced improved abdominal pain and discomfort, but worsening of headache, cough, injection site irritation, blurry vision, and vision change (all p<0.05). Sad mood did not worsen on PEG, although this may be confounded by concurrent use of mood stabilizers. Concentration problems on PEG were significantly worse at 9 mo (p=0.04). Both arms experienced worsened QoL (MPN-SAF single item: HU p=0.009, PEG p=0.003). In comparing between arms, TSS significantly differed (p=0.009) with higher symptoms on HU vs PEG at 3 and 6 mo, but lower symptoms at 9 and 12 mo (Figure 1). Similar descriptive profiles were observed for most individual symptoms; however, the only symptom profiles which significantly differed between arms was early satiety (p=0.03). ELN Response and Symptom Burden/QoL: Among 62 pts with symptom and response data at 12 mo, CHR rate was 37% (23/62). Change in sad mood and sexuality were the only significant differences between pts with and without CHR regardless of arm though in the unanticipated direction (sad mood: mean change 1.5 vs -0.8, p<0.001; sexuality: mean change 2.33 vs 0.3, p=0.03). Conclusions: PEG was associated with an initial decrease in MPN symptom burden when compared to HU. However, with longer duration of therapy, this superiority dissipated. Patient-reported PEG toxicities worsened over time. On both arms, symptom worsening was observed in pts achieving an ELN CHR, possibly leading to the observed negative impact on mood and sexuality. Future research on the impact of PEG on disease progression and molecular features will be important to assess whether increased side effects with PEG are justified. Disclosures Mesa: CTI: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Harrison:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Baxaltra: Consultancy, 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. Yacoub:Alexion: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, 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:Pfizer: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Research Funding; Grifols: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Biogen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy, Research Funding; LFB: Other: Member of DSMB. Ritchie:Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Arian: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Schlenk:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Promedior: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: DSMB , Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Clinical Trial Steereing Committee, Research Funding.