Citations

Abstract Background Severe anemia with RBC-transfusion-dependence is common in persons with advanced MPN-associated myelofibrosis. Pomalidomide, an immune-modulating drug with pleiotrophic bone marrow effects, improved anemia in several phase 2 studies. Method Phase 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pomalidomide (0.5 mg/d) in subjects with MPN-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion-dependence. The primary endpoint was RBC-transfusion-independence. Criteria for RBC-transfusion-dependence and -independence were based on results of an expert consensus panel RAND-Delphi study. Subjects 252 subjects were randomized 2:1 to receive pomalidomide or placebo with stratifications for age, type of myelofibrosis, and intensity of RBC-transfusions. Median age was 70 y. 75% had primary myelofibrosis. Median units (U) RBC-transfusions/28 d pre-randomization was 3 (range, 2-13). Results Response rates in the cohorts were similar (16% [95% CI, 11-23%] vs 16% [8-26%]), as were response durations. However, median time to response for pomalidomide was 7 w (range, 0-20 w) vs only 2 w (range, 0-15 w) for placebo (p=0.22). Response in both cohorts was more common in subjects with ≤4 vs >4 U RBC/28 d pre-randomization (OR=3.1 [p=0.09] and OR=8.6 [p=0.06]). However, other variables associated with response to pomalidomide: age ≤65 vs >65 y (OR=2.4; p=0.07) and primary myelofibrosis vs other (OR=2.6; p=0.14) and response to placebo: (WBC >25 vs ≤25 x10E9/L; OR=5.0; p=0.08) and interval from diagnosis to randomization >2 vs ≤2 y (OR=5.0; p=0.04) differed. These differences would not be expected were response to pomalidomide identical to response to placebo. Also, a center effect was found in placebo but not pomalidomide responders, which persisted after adjusting for predictive associations. Several pomalidomide responders lost response when therapy was stopped but regained it when pomalidomide was re-started. No pre-randomization therapy (iron-chelation, hydroxyurea, busulfan, folate) was consistently correlated with response to placebo, and durations of RBC-transfusion-dependence pre-randomization were similar between the cohorts. In contrast, platelet response rates, a 2̍° endpoint, were significantly different between the cohorts: pomalidomide, 22% (95% CI, 11-35%) vsplacebo, 0 (0-12%; p=0.006). Platelet response was not correlated with RBC-transfusion-independence response. Conclusion There was no significant difference in rate or duration of RBC-transfusion-independence response to pomalidomide vsplacebo despite using what were thought to be sensitive and specific entry- and response-criteria. Unexpectedly, however, most variables associated with response to pomalidomide and placebo differed between the cohorts, as did distribution of times to response. These data suggest responses to pomalidomide and placebo differ but were not distinguished by our response-criteria. Pomalidomide appears to reverse RBC transfusion dependence in some persons with MPN associated MF. However, additional research designs are needed to study this impression. This abstract is presented on behalf of all RESUME Investigators. Study registration: NCT01178281. Disclosures: Cervantes: Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gisslinger:AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria; Novartis: Advisory Board Meeting, Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Advisory Board Meeting, Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria; Shire: Advisory Board Meeting, Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria; Celgene: Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria; Janssen: Advisory Board Meeting, Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria. Gupta:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Grant support through institution Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Grant support through institution, Grant support through institution Other, Honoraria. Harrison:SBio: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; YM Bioscience: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Schiller:Celgene: Research Funding. Mesa:Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND. In primary myelofibrosis (PMF), survival from time of diagnosis is predicted by the international prognostic scoring system (IPSS), and from time of referral, by the dynamic IPSS (DIPSS) or DIPSS-plus. JAK2/CALR/MPL mutational status and presence and number of other prognostically-relevant mutations (ASXL1, SRSF2, EZH2, IDH1/2) provide IPSS/DIPSS-plus independent prognostic information. The objective in the current study was to revise IPSS, by including mutation-relevant prognostic information. METHODS. The study included 986 PMF patients divided into learning (n=588) and validation (n=398) cohorts. Previously published methods were used to screen for mutations involving JAK2,MPL, CALR, EZH2, ASXL1, IDH1/2 and SRSF2. The clinical variables assessed were those previously identified as being prognostically-relevant by IPSS or DIPSS-plus. The prognostic model (MIPSS) was developed through a stepwise selection process, based on a z-test of the regression coefficients, and its relative quality was measured by means of the Akaike information criterion. RESULTS. In the Italian learning cohort (n=588),median follow-up was 3.6years (95% CI, 0.03-30.8) for alive patients and 196 (33.3%) deaths and 67 leukemic transformations were documented. IPSS risk distribution was low in 26%, intermediate-1 in 30%, intermediate-2 in 24% and high in 20%. Mutational frequencies were approximately 63% for JAK2, 20% CALR, 6% MPL, 7% EZH2, 22% ASXL1, 2.5% IDH1/2 and 9% SRSF2. Constitutional symptoms were recorded in 28.6% of patients, splenomegaly 75% (18% >10cm from LCM) and grade 3 fibrosis 21%. Overall 252 patients were evaluable for karyotype and abnormalities were detected in 35%, including 9.5% unfavorable. Univariate analysis identified the following risk factors for inferior survival: age >60 years, constitutional symptoms, hemoglobin <100g/L, leukocytes >25x109/L, platelets <200x109/L, circulating blasts 1% or greater, splenomegaly >10cm, grade 3 fibrosis, unfavorable karyotype, triple-negativity for JAK2, MPL and CALR (TN), JAK2 or MPL mutation, and mutations in ASXL1, SRSF2, EZH2 or IDH1/2. In multivariable analysis, age >60 years, constitutional symptoms, hemoglobin <100g/L, platelets <200x109/L, TN, JAK2 or MPL mutation, ASXL1 and SRSF2 mutation remained significant; these variables were subsequently assigned the following HR-weighted adverse points: 1.5, 0.5, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 0.5, 0.5 and 0.5, respectively. Subsequently, four risk groups with no overlap in the 95% CI of their survival curves were delineated (Figure 1A): low (score 0-0.5); Intermediate-1 (score 1-1.5); Intermediate-2 (score 2-3.5); and high (score 4 or greater). The number of patients in each risk category, median survivals and HR and 95% CI values are included in figure 1A. Akaike information criterion indicated that MIPSS performed better than IPSS in predicting survival (1611.6 vs 1649.0). Leukemia-free survival was also predicted by high (p<0.01) and intermediate 1/2 (p<0.01) risk MIPSS. In the Mayo Clinic validation cohort (n=398), median age 63 years; males 64%,median follow-up for alive patients was 7.5 years and 271 (68%) deaths and 51 (13%) leukemic transformations were documented. DIPSS-plus risk distribution was low in 13%, intermediate-1 18%, intermediate-2 37% and high 32%. Mutational frequencies were approximately 51% for JAK2, 30% CALR, 7.5% MPL, 5% EZH2, 36% ASXL1, 5.6% IDH1/2 and 13% SRSF2. MIPSS performed equally well in this cohort, as illustrated in figure 1B, which includes number of patients in each risk category with their median survival and HR and 95% CI values. Leukemia-free survival in the Mayo cohort was also predicted by high (p<0.01) and intermediate-2 (p=0.04) risk MIPSS. Patients in the Mayo cohort were fully annotated for karyotype, which was MIPSS-independent in its prognostic value for both overall (p<0.01) and leukemia-free (p<0.01) survival. CONCLUSIONS. MIPSS addresses the mutation-relevant prognostic information gap in IPSS and performs equally well in the setting of patients seen at time of diagnosis or referral. Karyotype carries MIPSS-independent prognostic value that is recognized in an alternative GIPSS prognostic model (see accompanying ASH 2014 abstract), which complements MIPSS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 1746 Diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia (ET) has been updated in the last World Health Organization (WHO) classification, that provides a guideline to distinguish ET from early/prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis. These two conditions differ in term of disease evolution and survival (Barbui et al, J. Clin. Oncol. 2011). To design a prognostic model for survival in WHO-defined ET (International Prognostic Score for Essential Thrombocythemia, IPSET), we studied 891 patients with strict WHO diagnostic criteria. Demographics have been presented elsewhere (Barbui et al, J. Clin. Oncol. 2011). We tested the prognostic impact on survival of age, prior thrombosis, leukocyte count, platelet count, hemoglobin level, JAK mutational status, splenomegaly. Harrell's C concordance statistics were used to set the best cutoff levels of continuous variables in order to predict survival. Univariate Cox proportional hazard regression showed that age over 60 years (P<.0001), leukocyte count greater than 11 x109/L (P<.0001), anemia (P=.04), platelet count greater than 1000 x109/L (P<.004) and prior history of thrombosis (P< 0001) were significant risk factors for survival. Age over 60 years (hazard ratio-HR- 6.5, 95% CI: 3.9–10.7; P<.0001), leukocyte count greater than 11 × 109/L (HR: 3.1, 95% CI: 2–4.7; P<.0001) and prior history of thrombosis (HR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.9–4.5; P< 0001) retained statistical significance on survival by multivariable analysis and were included in the new prognostic model. We assigned each factor an integer weight close to the corresponding HR in the multivariable Cox regression: weight 2 for age over 60 years; weight 1 for leukocyte count greater than 11 x109/L and for prior thrombosis. Finally, we defined the IPSET score by allocating patients into three risk categories with significantly different survival according to the sum of weights: low risk (sum of weights=0; n= 342; median survival not reached), intermediate risk (sum=1-2; N=374; median survival 24.5 years), and high risk (sum=3-4, n=158; median survival 13.8 years). Fisher exact test did not reveal a difference in the distribution of the causes of death among IPSET categories. We validated the model in two independent cohorts: one from Germany (132 WHO-defined ET) and another from France (234 ET patients not strictly diagnosed according to WHO). Log rank test and Cox regression showed significant differences in term of survival among IPSET categories in both series. Finally, we designed an age-specific IPSET model for patients younger than 60 years (IPSET-y). Using the same methodology, we found that age over 45 years (weight 2), leukocyte count greater than 11 × 109/L (weight 1) and prior history of thrombosis (weight 1) were independent risk factors for survival. IPSET-y defined three risk categories (LR, sum=0; IR, sum=1-2; HR, sum=3–4) with a median survival not reached in LR and IR, and of 22.3 years in HR. In conclusion, IPSET, based on age over 60 years, leukocyte count greater than 11 x109/L and history of thrombosis allows prognostic assessment of WHO-defined ET. The validation process makes IPSET applicable in all patients phenotypically appearing as ET. IPSET models may be useful for treatment decision-making. Disclosures: Vannucchi: Italfarmaco: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria. Gisslinger:AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3833 Background: Survival in primary myelofibrosis (PMF) is assessed by the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) (Blood 2010;115:1703) and DIPSS-plus (JCO 2011;29:392). The latter is based on eight risk factors including age>65 years, constitutional symptoms, hemoglobin <10 g/dL, red blood cell transfusion need, leukocyte count >25 × 109/L, platelet count <100 × 109/L, peripheral blood (PB) blasts ≥1% and unfavorable karyotype. Recent studies have highlighted the prognostic significance of monosomal karyotype (MK) (Blood 2011;117:5612), unfavorable karyotype (Leukemia 2011;25:82) and platelet count <100 × 109/L ((JCO 2011;29:392), for leukemic transformation (LT) in PMF. Methods: A combination of multivariable and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were applied to a Mayo Clinic database of 884 karyotypically-annotated patients with PMF, in order to define karyotype-dependent and karyotype-independent risk models for LT. The karyotype-independent model was further validated in a separate cohort of 525 PMF patients from an international database (Blood 2010;115:1703). Patients in the Mayo cohort were evaluated at time of referral and those of the international database at time of initial diagnosis. Results I: Sixty cases of LT were documented. Karyotype (categorized into MK, inv(3)/i(17q) abnormalities, other unfavorable, and favorable), PB blast percentage (as a continuous variable), and platelet count (as a continuous variable) were the most reliable (p<0.01) in predicting leukemia-free survival (LFS). The best discriminant levels for inferior LFS were MK (HR 6.2, 95% CI 2.2–17.1), inv(3)/i(17q) abnormalities (HR 7.6, 95% CI 1.8–33.3), PB blast ≥2% (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.4–4.2) and platelet count ≤41 × 109/L (HR 2.6, 95% CI 1.3–5.1). MK and inv(3)/i(17q) abnormalities were subsequently consolidated into one “very high risk” cytogenetic category (n =27), with a corresponding HR of 6.6 (95% CI 2.7–16.0). HR-based risk scores were assigned to “very high risk” karyotype (2 points), PB blast ≥2% (one point) and platelet count ≤50 × 109/L (one point) to classify patients into low (no adverse points; n =522), intermediate (one adverse point; n =290) and high risk (two or more adverse points; n =72) groups; the corresponding 3-year LT rates were 3%, 10% (HR 2.6; 95% CI 1.4–4.6) and 35% (HR 9.4, 95% CI 4.7–18.7) (Figure 1). Results II: The karyotype-independent model was based on PB blast percentage and platelet count only; low-risk (no adverse points; n =525), intermediate-risk (one adverse point; n =311) and high-risk (two adverse points; n =48); the corresponding 3-year LT rates were 3%, 12% (HR 3.1, 95% CI 1.8–5.4; p<0.0001) and 25% (HR 6.0, 95% CI 2.6–14.1). The karyotype-independent model was validated in a separate cohort of 525 PMF patients with 70 documented cases of LT, from an international database (Blood 2010;115:1703). Conclusions: The current leukemia risk models are applicable at diagnosis or during follow-up, in the presence or absence of cytogenetic information, and complement DIPSS-plus in the comprehensive prognostication of patients with PMF. Disclosures: Vannucchi: Novartis: Honoraria.

Abstract Background: The few therapies available to treat higher-risk MDS and CMML have limited impact on outcome. We previously reported initial results of S1117, which compared overall response rates (ORRs) of azacitidine (AZA) monotherapy to AZA combined with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (VOR), or the immunomodulator lenalidomide (LEN)( ASH 2014 LBA-5). We now report updated response data and overall survival (OS), subgroup analyses, impact of cytogenetics, and effect of treatment center volume/centers of excellence on outcome. Methods: This randomized, Phase II study (ClinTrials.gov # NCT01522976) enrolled higher-risk MDS (International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Int-2 or High and/or bone marrow blasts ≥5%) and CMML adult patients (pts) with <20% blasts from 3/12-6/14 to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/d on d1-7 of a 28d cycle), AZA + LEN (10 mg/d on d1-21), or AZA + VOR (300 mg BID on d3-9). Pts continued treatment until treatment failure, defined as disease progression, relapse, significant or unresolved toxicity, or lack of response. Dose reductions occurred for grade ≥3 adverse events (per NCI CTCAE) or delayed count recovery. Cytogenetic risk groups were defined per IPSS-R. The primary endpoint was improvement in ORR, by intention to treat and reviewed centrally, of one of the combination arms vs. AZA per 2006 International Working Group MDS response criteria (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + hematologic improvement (HI)). OS was from study entry. MDS Centers of Excellence (MCE) were defined per MDS Foundation; center volume was defined as low (1-4 pts enrolled) or high (5-17 pts). Results: Of 277 pts, 92 received AZA, 93 AZA+LEN, and 92 AZA+VOR. Baseline characteristics, previously reported, were similar across arms. Pts received a median of 22 weeks of therapy and were followed for a median of 10 months (range: 0-30). Non-protocol defined dose modification and protocol discontinuation due to toxicity occurred more frequently in combination arms vs. AZA (p=.0014 and p=.018, respectively). Responses are now assessable in all pts (Table 1). ORR was statistically similar for combination arms vs. AZA, with a trend for longer response duration (p=.083) for combinations. Within HI, AZA+LEN pts had higher HI-n than AZA pts (16% vs. 5%, p=.031). ORR for CMML pts was significantly higher for LEN+AZA vs. AZA (63% vs. 29%, p=.04), with a trend for longer response duration for combinations (p=.06); no differences in ORR were seen for therapy-related MDS, IPSS subgroups, or transfusion-dependent pts. Allogeneic transplantation rates were similar. Median OS (Figure) for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR was 15:18 (p=.38):17 (p=.17) months; p=.19 for combination arms vs. AZA. Median OS after failure was 7:9 (p=.6):9 (p=.05) months; p=.15 for combination arms after failure vs. AZA. For pts on therapy >6 months, there was a trend (p=.08) for higher ORR for AZA+LEN vs. AZA, though response duration was similar; median OS was 18:21 (p=.44 vs. AZA):21 months (p=.45 vs. AZA). Cytogenetic risk category distribution and ORR was similar across arms. OS (compared to Very Good/Good) was worse for Poor (HR 2.07, p=.022) and Very poor (HR 4.41, p<.001), without significant modification by treatment arm (Table 2). Compared to pts without identified cytogenetic abnormalities (abn), ORR across arms was better for pts with Chr 5 abn (OR 2.38, p=.004); OS was better for normal (HR .42, p<.001) and worse for Chr 5 abn (HR 3.1, p<.001), -7 (HR 2.69, p<.001), and 17p (HR 2.61, p<.001). While small numbers prevented definitive conclusions for treatment arm effect, combinations trended towards improving OS in Normal and Chr 5 abn only. The outcome of all pts and pts on discrete study arms treated at MCE (n=75) or high volume (n=138) sites were similar to non-MCE or low-volume sites for ORR, non-protocol defined dose modifications, dose adjustment in first 4 cycles, time to off-protocol (HR 1.2, p=.21 and HR .94, p=.64), and OS (HR .81, p=.3 and HR .77, p=.12). Conclusions: In higher-risk MDS pts, ORR and OS was similar for AZA monotherapy compared to combination arms, while for CMML pts, ORR was significantly higher with AZA+LEN. For cytogenetic subgroups, OS was worse for Chr 5 abn, -7, and 17p, and may be improved by combinations in normal or Chr 5 abn. MCE or treatment at a high volume site did not impact these effects or outcomes. Figure 1. Responses Figure 1. Responses Figure 2. Cytogenetics Figure 2. Cytogenetics Figure 3. Figure 3. Disclosures Sekeres: Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. List:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Odenike:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Stone:Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Buckstein:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fang:Affymetrix: Research Funding. Attar:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Erba:Ariad: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees ; Ariad: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees.

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.

Abstract Background The median survival (OS) of patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF; 6.5y) is significantly shortened compared to reference population (Cervantes et al, JCO 2012; 30:2981). OS is predicted by the four risk categories of IPSS, Dynamic-IPSS and DIPSS-plus score, nevertheless pts heterogeneity persists within these categories, necessitating improved risk stratification. We recently reported that pts harboring mutations in any one of the prognostically relevant ASXL1, EZH2, IDH1/2 and SRSF2 genes constitute a IPSS-and DIPPS-plus independent Molecular High Risk category (MHR+) characterized by significant reduction of OS and leukemia free survival (LFS) (Vannucchi et al, Leukemia 2013). The aim of this work was to analyze the impact of the number of prognostically relevant mutated genes on OS and LFS in PMF. Patients and methods Two independent cohorts are included, a “test cohort” from Europe, analyzed at diagnosis, and a “validation cohort” from Mayo Clinic, analyzed at any time after diagnosis. Mutation analysis was performed in DNA from whole blood or granulocytes using RTQ-PCR, HRM and direct sequencing; all mutations were confirmed at least twice. The prognostic value of the molecular variables with regard to OS and LFS was analyzed by Cox regression. Test cohort It included 490 pts (median age 61y; males = 301) risk stratified by IPSS into high (n=74, 15%), intermediate-2 (n=93, 19% ), intermediate-1 (n=147, 30%) and low (n=176, 36%). The median follow-up was 3.63y (95% CI, 0.06-28.33); 161 pts died (33.0%), of whom 76 (15.6%) had progressed to acute leukemia after a median of 3.4y (0.04-28.3) from diagnosis. One hundred forty-six pts (29.8%) presented at least one of the four aforementioned mutated genes and were classified as MHR+. The OS of MHR+ pts was significantly reduced compared to patients with no mutations (n=344): 80.7 vs 148.9 mo (HR 2.2, CI95% 1.6-3.03). One hundred twelve (22.8%) pts had 1 mutation and 34 (6.9%) had 2 or more mutations. In univariate analysis presence of 2 or more mutated genes was significantly more detrimental for OS (29.5mo; HR 4.12, IC95% 2.6-6.4) than having 1 mutated gene (84.2mo; HR 1.8, IC95% 1.2-2.5) compared with having no mutations (148.9mo). Multivariate analysis results adjusted for IPSS indicated that having two or more mutations was an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR 2.9, 95% CI 1.8-4.5). Notably, the prognostic relevance of harboring two or more mutations involved both lower (low and intermediate-1; HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.3-2.6) and higher (intermediate-2 and high; HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1) categories of IPSS. Also LFS resulted significantly shorter (129mo; HR 3.1, 95%CI 1.9-4.8) in MHR+ pts compared with pts with no adverse mutations (323mo). Having 2 or more mutations correlated with greater reduction of LFS (79.6mo; HR 7.02, CI95% 3.9-12.6) than having one mutation only (133.9mo; HR 2.2, IC95% 1.3-3.7) as compared with no mutations (323.2mo). Multivariate analysis showed that IPSS high risk category (HR 4.5; 95% CI 2.3-8.8) and two or more mutated genes (HR 5.3; 95% CI 2.9-9.8) predicted independently for a significant reduction in LFS. The negative impact on LFS of having 2 or more mutated genes compared to one or no mutations was maintained in the lower (HR 6.4, 95% CI 2.6-15.2) and higher (HR 5.5, 95% CI 2.3-12.8) risk categories. Validation cohort Validation cohort included 262 patients (median age 64 years; males = 167) risk stratified by DIPSS-plus into high (n=89, 34%), intermediate-2 (n=92, 35%), intermediate-1 (n=46, 18%) and low (n=34, 13%). One hundred forty-six pts (56%) displayed none of the four aforementioned mutations, 93 (36%) harbored one mutation whereas 23 (9%) harbored two or more mutations. In univariate analysis, having two or more mutations (HR 3.7; 95% CI 2.2-6.1) was significantly more detrimental for OS than having no mutations, which is more favorable than having one mutation (HR 1.9; 95% CI 1.4-2.7). When adjusted for DIPSS-plus, the presence of two or more mutations retained its significance (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.3-3.6) and outperformed ASXL1 mutation alone in its prognostic relevance Conclusions Overall, these results show that the number of prognostically relevant mutated genes correlate with OS and LFS in pts with PMF, suggesting that screening for these mutations might help to improve risk stratification. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Philadelphia-negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms (MPN) include Polycythemia Vera (PV), Essential Thrombocythemia (ET) and Myelofibrosis Primary (PMF) and secondary to PV and ET (PPV-, PET-MF); included are also some less characterized entities defined as unclassified MPN (U-MPN). Risk of arterial and venous thrombosis is increased in MPN patients, and thrombosis is one of most important causes of mortality and morbidity. The risk of venous thrombosis in unusual sites, such as splanchnic vessels (SVT), is particularly associated with MPN; SVT can lead to complications such as portal hypertension, esophageal and gastric varices, ascites and hepatic failure. A recent meta-analysis reported that a MPN is the underlying cause of portal vein thrombosis in 31.5% and of Budd Chiari syndrome in 40.9% of cases (Smalberg, 2012). A significant association of SVT with JAK2V617F mutated MPN was reported (Dentali, 2009) but study of other correlations has been hampered by heterogeneity of available patient cohorts comprising relatively small number of cases. We conducted a retrospective multicenter study collecting clinical and biological data of patients (pts) with SVT associated with MPN diagnosed according to WHO2008 criteria, aiming to describe patients’ characteristics, trends and prognostic factors, and their potential implications for clinical practice. Data were collected from 15 international hematology centers in the framework of IWG-MRT. We collected 475 cases of pts with portal, splenic or mesenteric vein thrombosis (75.2%) or Budd Chiari syndrome (24.8%) associated with MPN. In 32% of cases, simultaneous involvement of portal (69.1% of total thrombosis), splenic (30.5%) and mesenteric (25.3%) veins occurred, and in 1.7% they were associated with Budd Chiari syndrome. Frequency of MPN subtype: 38.1% ET (n=181), 34.9% PV (n=166), 16.2% MF (n=77), 10.8% U-MPN (n=51). Median follow-up 87.9 mo (range 0.5-430); female 61.3% (n=292; P<0.0001 vs male); median age at MPN diagnosis (dg) 44.4 y (range 12-90), at SVT dg 44.9 y (range 17-85). In 229 cases (48%) MPN and SVT dg were coincident, while in 104 (22%) SVT occurred before MPN dg (median 40 mo, range 5-335) and in 129 (27%) during MPN follow up (median 79 mo, range 5-394). JAK2V617F mutational status is available for 361 pts: 99% PV, 84.7% ET, 88.1% PMF and 92.9% U-MPN pts were JAK2V617F positive, with a mean allele burden of 56±27.4%, 33.1±25.5%, 39.3±19.4% and 23.8±11.9%, respectively. Erythropoietin-independent colonies (EEC) were present at diagnosis in 80/110 evaluated cases (72.7%), 38/47 PV (84.4%), 32/45 ET (71.1%), 8/11 PMF (72.7%) and 2/7 U-MPN (28.6%). A concurrent thrombophilic state was found in 38.9% of cases. A 12.3% of pts experienced a recurrence of SVT after a median of 29 mo (range 1-378.3) and 35.8% developed thrombosis in other sites (17.7% arterial, 19.3% venous). Esophageal varices were found in 70.6% from which 31.9% bled. MF transformation occurred in 32/166 PV (19%) and in 23/181 ET (13%) pts, with median time to progression of 122.3 mo (range 5.4-377.3) and 125.1 mo (range 39.3-255.3), respectively. Evolution to acute leukemia (AL) occurred in 12 pts (2.7%), of which 2 PMF, 6 PV and 4 ET. In 3 PV and 1 ET pts a PPV and PET-MF transformation occurred before AL. After SVT, 77% of pts received anticoagulation, 23.5% antiaggregant therapy and 1.5% both; 68.8% received cytotoxic drugs, 11.4% of pts were treated with trans jugular porto-systemic shunt. No differences in survival were noted with these approaches. Beta blocker therapy was used in 48.5% of pts and correlated with improved survival (p=0.041) At last follow up 70/473 pts (14.8%) died; causes of death are evolution to AL (16.4%), other cancers (14.5%), disease progression without AL (12.7%), SVT (10.9%), hepatic failure and venous thrombosis other than SVT (9.1% each), heart failure and arterial thrombosis (7.3% each), hemorrhage (5.5%), renal failure and infection (3.6% each). After 10 y follow up 8/166 PV (5%), 14/181 ET (8%), 14/77 PMF (18%) and 1/51 U-MPN (1.96%) pts died (p<0.01). Survival was significantly affected by occurrence of thrombosis other than SVT (p<0.0001) but not recurrence in splanchnic vessels (p=0.068). This large study confirms the strong association between JAK2V617F-mutated MPN and SVT and identifies the category of U-MPN as the prognostically more favorable; thrombosis at sites outside the splanchnic vasculature remains the leading cause of death. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 2877 Poster Board II-853 Background and Objective: In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients, treatment with lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) was superior to high-dose dexamethasone in terms of both response rates and 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Preliminary results suggest that the combination lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) compared to the RD regimen yields significantly better 2-year overall survival (OS) (Rajkumar SV et al, J Clin Oncol 2008;26:8504). The combination of melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (MPR) has been investigated in a phase I/II study showing promising results (Palumbo A et al, J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:4459-4465). The goal of this case –control study was to compare the efficacy and the toxicity of the lenalidomide/dexamethasone (len/dex) combination vs MPR as primary therapy for newly diagnosed elderly MM patients, to determine the additive value of melphalan compared to a regimen of lenalidomide plus corticosteroid. Patients and methods: Data from 51 newly diagnosed MM patients enrolled in Italy in a phase I/II dose-escalating trial, from January to October 2005, with MPR, were analyzed. For comparison of their outcome, 37 patients were identified among newly diagnosed patients seen at the Mayo Clinic from March 2005 to December 2008 who received len/dex as primary therapy and were enrolled in phase II or III trials. Patients treated with MPR received 9 monthly cycles of oral melphalan (doses ranging from 0.18 to 0.25 mg/kg on days 1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg on days 1-4) and lenalidomide (doses ranging from 5 to 10 mg/day on days 1-21). After 9 cycles, patients started maintenance with lenalidomide alone (10 mg, days 1-21) until relapse or progression. Patients treated with len/dex received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 1-21) plus dexamethasone, either at low-dose (n=17) (40 mg orally days 1, 8, 15, 22) or at high-dose (n=21) (40 mg orally on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20). Treatment was continued until progression, relapse or unacceptable toxicity, or could be stopped at the physician's discretion. Patients (n=13) were allowed to receive transplant if they wished and were deemed eligible. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: On intention-to-treat analysis, 15.7% versus 23.7% patients, respectively in the MPR and in the len/dex group, (p=0.342) achieved a complete response, and 43.2% vs 47.4%, (p=0.691) achieved at least a very good partial response. Time-to-progression (TTP) (median: 24.7 vs 27.5 in MPR and len/dex groups, respectively; HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.55-1.98; p=0.903), PFS (median: 24.7 vs 27.5 in MPR and len/dex groups, respectively; HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.55-1.92; p=0.926) and OS (2-year OS: 86.2% in MPR group vs 89.1% in len/dex, HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.38-1.98; p=0.730) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. No significant differences in TTP, PFS and OS were reported when MPR patients were compared with the subgroup of patients treated with low-dose dexamethasone plus lenalidomide. Similar results were found when the analysis was restricted to MPR patients and len/dex pair mates receiving lenalidomide plus low/dose dexamethasone, matched according to age and sex, and who did not received transplant. The toxicity profile was different in the two groups. Hematologic grade 3-4 toxicities were more common with MPR compared with len/dex, in particular neutropenia (66.7% vs 21.1%, p < 0.001) and thrombocytopenia (31.4% vs 2.6%, p < 0.001), respectively. Grade 3-4 gastrointestinal events (13.2% vs 2.0%, p= 0.080), thrombotic events (13.2 vs 5.9, p= 0.279) and fatigue (10.5% vs 3.9%, p= 0.395) were more common with len/dex compared with MPR. Conclusion: Results of this case-control study show that both MPR and Rd are efficacious regimens for elderly MM patients. Data need however to be carefully evaluated and randomized control trials are needed to confirm these results. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drug in combination to standard of care. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzyme: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Musto:celgene: Honoraria. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Petrucci:celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding. Boccadoro:jansen Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; pharmion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Palumbo:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria.

Abstract Background: Higher-risk MDS and CMML comprise a spectrum of disorders associated with cytopenias, high risk of transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and truncated survival. Initial treatment with a hypomethylating agent such as azacitidine (AZA) is considered standard of care. Whether addition of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (VOR), which acts synergistically with AZA to reactivate epigenetically silenced genes, or addition of lenalidomide (LEN), which impacts the bone marrow microenvironment, improves response rates compared to AZA monotherapy is unknown. Methods: This Phase II study (ClinTrials.gov # NCT01522976) randomized higher-risk MDS (International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Int-2 or High and/or bone marrow blasts >5%) and CMML patients (pts) with <20% blasts to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/d on d1-7 of a 28d cycle), AZA + LEN (10 mg/d on d1-21), or AZA + VOR (300 mg BID on d3-9). Eligibility criteria included: >18 years (yrs), no previous allogeneic transplant, no prior treatment with any of the study drugs, and adequate organ function; therapy-related (t)MDS was allowed. Pts continued treatment until disease progression, relapse, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of response. Dose reductions occurred for unresolved grade >3 adverse events (per NCI CTCAE) or delayed count recovery. The primary endpoint was improvement in overall response rate (ORR), by intention to treat and reviewed centrally, of one of the combination arms vs. AZA monotherapy per 2006 International Working Group MDS response criteria (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + hematologic improvement (HI)). Relapse-free survival (RFS) was from time of response. The study had 81% power to detect a 20% improvement in ORR from 35% to 55%. Results: Of 282 pts enrolled from 3/12–6/14, 276 are included in analyses (6 ineligible pts excluded): 92 on the AZA arm, 93 on AZA+LEN, and 91 on AZA+VOR. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced across arms (Table). Pts received a median of 23 weeks of therapy: 25 of AZA; 24 of AZA+LEN; and 20 of AZA+VOR and were followed for a median of 9 months (range: 0-26). Numbers of pts with notable adverse events >grade 3 for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR included febrile neutropenia (10:13:13); gastrointestinal disorders (4:11:23); infections (2:3:3); and rash (2:12:1). Responses were assessable in 260 pts (94%). ORR for the entire cohort was 33%: 19% CR, 1% PR, and 13% HI, with a median RFS of 7 months. ORR was similar across study arms: 36% for AZA, 37% for AZA+LEN (p=1.0 vs. AZA), and 22% for AZA+VOR (p=.07 vs. AZA). CR/PR/HI rates across arms were also similar: 23%/0%/13% for AZA; 18%/1%/17% for AZA+LEN (CR p=.47 vs. AZA); and 14%/1%/7% for AZA+VOR (CR p=.18 vs. AZA); rates of bone marrow exams to assess response were 76%, 67%, and 73%, respectively. HI-P/HI-E/HI-N rates were 21%/15%/5% for AZA, 26%/14%/15% for AZA+LEN, and 12%/8%/4% for AZA+VOR. HI-N rates were higher in AZA+LEN vs. AZA (p=.05) but otherwise were similar across arms. Median time to best response across arms was 15 weeks in AZA, 16 weeks in AZA+LEN, and 16 weeks in AZA+VOR. ORR did not vary significantly across arms in subgroup analyses for tMDS, baseline red blood cell (RBC) transfusion dependence, and by IPSS risk group. ORR for CMML pts for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR was 33%:53%(p=.15 vs. AZA):12%(p=.41 vs. AZA). Allogeneic transplantation rates were: 7 pts on AZA, 6 on AZA+LEN, and 9 on AZA+VOR. For AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR, median RFS was: 6:8:11 months (log-rank p=.3 for combination arms vs. AZA, Figure); and for pts on therapy >6 months, it was 7:7.5:13 months (log-rank p=.11 for AZA+VOR, .74 for AZA+LEN vs. AZA). Conclusions: In higher-risk MDS pts, ORR was similar for AZA monotherapy compared to AZA-containing combination arms, though some subgroups may have benefitted from combination therapy. Differences in types of response may have resulted from differential rates of follow-up bone marrow assessments. While a non-significant signal of a DFS advantage for combination therapy was observed, longer-term outcome data are being assessed. Table Table. Figure Figure. Disclosures Sekeres: Boehringer-Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: lenalidomide, vorinostat for higher-risk MDS. List:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Attar:Celgene: Consultancy. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.