Citations

Abstract We conducted a two-stage Simon phase II, multi-center study in two groups: related and unrelated donor transplants. Based on the results of a previously conducted prospective study (MPD-RC 101, Rondelli et al, Blood, 2014) demonstrating relatively poor outcome in the unrelated donor arm due to high non-relapse mortality and graft failure (GF), we sought to improve this noted disparate outcome. The hypothesis driving this trial was that pre-transplant JAK1/2 inhibition would result in an increase in performance status, reduction in splenomegaly and inflammatory cytokine expression leading to improved HCT outcome. In the unrelated arm in the first 11 patients, the trial was to be terminated if 6 or more failures (GF or death due to any cause by 100 days post-transplant) were observed. In the related arm in the first 11 patients, the trial was to be terminated if 3 or more failures were observed. Key eligibility criteria included diagnosis of primary MF or post-PV MF or post-ET MF, age 18-70 years, and DIPSS int-2/high risk disease or int-1 risk disease with at least one additional risk factor. Patients could have received up to 6 months of ruxolitinib prior to enrollment provided that there was no evidence of loss of response to ruxolitinib during this period. Ruxolitinib was given for 56 days followed by a 4-day taper ending day -6. The conditioning regimen utilized was IV fludarabine 40 mg/m2 IV and IV busulfan 2.0 mg/KBW IV once daily for 4 days from days -5 to -2. GVHD prophylaxis consisted of cyclosporine or tacrolimus and methotrexate. Patients undergoing unrelated donor HCT also received low dose thymoglobulin (0.5 mg/KBW on day -3/2.0 mg/KBW on day -2 & day -1). The study has enrolled 21 patients (related, 7; unrelated, 14) with a median age of 59 years (range 39-70). 17 (81%) patients had palpable splenomegaly with median spleen size of 11 cm, and 16 patients had int-2/high risk disease. Of the 21 patients, 19 patients received transplantation (related 5/7 [71%], unrelated 14/14 [100%] underwent transplant). Two patients in the related arm did not proceed with transplantation as one progressed to acute myeloid leukemia (baseline blast count 14%) and another experienced sudden death of unknown cause the day after starting ruxolitinib. In addition, there was one GF in the related arm. Due to these 3 failures in the related arm, further enrollment was stopped in this arm per protocol criteria. In the unrelated arm, there were 4 failures (Table 1), and the study met the protocol criteria for further enrollment. Mean percent reduction from baseline to day -9 in palpable spleen length below the left costal margin was 30% (p=0.04) in 12 patients with palpable spleen. 5/12 (42%) had any reduction, and 4/12 (33%) had ≥50% reduction. From baseline to best score on day -9 or day -5, 11/19 (58%) patients with data had any improvement in MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score, and 7/19 (37%) had ≥50% reduction. Of the 19 patients undergoing transplant, ruxolitinib was tapered off successfully in all patients with no significant withdrawal syndrome or delay in transplant noted. In the pre-transplant phase, most common Grade 3 or higher toxicity considered to be related to ruxolitinib was anemia (6/21, 29%), and one patient had legionella pneumonia deemed not related to ruxolitinib. Median time to neutrophil recovery (> 0.5 x 109/L) and platelet recovery (>20 x 109/L) was 19 and 19.5 days. By day 100, 7/19 (37%) experienced Grade 2-4 acute GVHD (G2 in 5, G3 in 2). In the first 30 days post HCT, most common Grade 3 or higher toxicity was febrile neutropenia seen in 5/19 (26%) patients. In all 21 patients from time of registration with median follow-up of 5.8 months, 6-mo overall survival was 75% (95% CI 44-90%). For the 19 transplant recipients, 6-mo OS was 83% (95% CI 55-94%) from date of transplant. Conclusions: Stage 1 trial results highlight important observations. First, ruxolitinib may not be suitable for all myelofibrosis patients pre-transplant, eg, alternative approaches might be more appropriate in the context of accelerating disease. Second, we demonstrated a safe approach for tapering ruxolitinib prior to transplant which allowed patients to commence conditioning with reduced spleen size and symptoms. Third, pre-transplant ruxolitinib does not appear to have any adverse impact on early post-HCT outcomes following unrelated donor transplant, although Stage 2 enrollment will be required to better assess the potential benefits of this approach. Disclosures Gupta: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding. Yacoub:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Honoraria. Mesa:Promedior: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Mead:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mascarenhas:Novartis: Other: DSMB , Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Clinical Trial Steereing Committee, Research Funding.

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

Background: Pegylated Interferon-alpha (PEG-IFNa) improves hematologic parameters and reduces mutant allele fraction in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs); however, widespread clinical use is limited by frequent discontinuation due to side effects. Identifying biomarkers of response to PEG-IFNa therapy might identify patient subsets most likely to derive benefit from this therapy. Serum pro-inflammatory cytokine levels are increased in MPN patients and associated with adverse clinical outcomes. The effect of PEG-IFNa therapy on cytokine levels in MPN patients and correlation with clinical response has not been elucidated. We hypothesized that identification of cytokine signatures could predict for clinical/molecular response to PEG-IFNa in MPNs. Methods: Pre- and post-treatment serum samples were collected from available patients enrolled on the Myeloproliferative Disorders Research Consortium (MPD-RC) 111/112 trials-multicenter studies assessing efficacy of PEG-IFNa in patients with high-risk polycythemia vera/essential thrombocythemia either up front or in the setting of hydroxyurea failure/intolerance. Serum was prepared using the Millipore MAP Human 41-Cytokine Magnet Bead System (Millipore; Cat:HCYTOMAG-60K) and run on the Luminex FLEXMAP 3D platform. Data was analyzed using Luminex xPonent 4.3 software. Correlative mutational data on 156 genes implicated in myeloid malignancies was also available for all patients. Age-matched serum from healthy individuals (N=6) was obtained from AllCellsTM for use as wild-type (WT) controls. Baseline cytokine samples were compared between groups of interest by use of Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Change from baseline in cytokines for each group were compared to the null hypothesis of zero change. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Pre- and post-treatment serum samples were available on 29 MPN patients from the MPN-RC 111/112 cohorts. 21 patients were classified as complete responders (CRs) vs. 8 non-responders (NRs) using European LeukemiaNet criteria. Baseline cytokine levels were generally increased in both CRs and NRs compared to WT, including significant increases in Eotaxin (p=0.023), IL3 (p=0.048), IP10 (p=0.04), and TNFa (p=0.006) (Table 1), as well as a non-significant trend increase in IL8 (p=0.076). Notably, other cytokines were decreased at baseline in comparison to WT, including EGF (p<0.001), as well as MDC (p=0.040) and PDGFaabb (p=0.02), in line with previous studies. Compared to CRs, NRs displayed significantly lower levels of GRO (p=0.020), MDC (p=0.003), and PDGFaabb (p=0.026) at baseline along with elevated levels of IP10 (p=0.028) suggesting pre-treatment levels of these cytokines might predict response to therapy. Comparison of pre- and post- treatment samples revealed a general increase in median cytokine levels in CRs, with significant changes in GM-CSF (p=0.012), IP10 (p<0.001), MCP1 (p=0.015) and IFNa itself (p=0.010). Notably, median cytokine levels in NRs post-treatment, including IFNa, were relatively unchanged from baseline despite on-going PEG-IFNa therapy. Additional pre-treatment serum samples, as well as correlative analysis of cytokine changes with JAK-STAT driver mutant allele fraction and mutational profiling are underway and will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Preliminary findings suggest individual cytokines are affected by PEG-IFNa in MPNs. Furthermore, baseline levels of GRO, MDC, PDGFaabb, and IP10 correlate with response to PEG-IFNa. These data may identify MPN patients most likely to respond to PEG-IFNa therapy and those for whom this therapy may be most appropriate. Further analysis with a larger cohort of treatment-naïve patients is underway to validate these findings and identify additional molecular and cytokine signatures of response to PEG-IFNa therapy. Disclosures Yacoub: Agios: Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Equity Ownership; Dynavax: Equity Ownership; Cara: Equity Ownership; Ardelyx: Equity Ownership; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Mascarenhas:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Pharmaessentia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Levine:Lilly: Honoraria; Qiagen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imago Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Isoplexis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; C4 Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Hoffman:Merus: Research Funding. Rampal:Constellation, Incyte, and Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios, Apexx, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, Constellation, and Jazz: Consultancy.

PURPOSE Observation is the current standard of care for smoldering multiple myeloma. We hypothesized that early intervention with lenalidomide could delay progression to symptomatic multiple myeloma. METHODS We conducted a randomized trial that assessed the efficacy of single-agent lenalidomide compared with observation in patients with intermediate- or high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma. Lenalidomide was administered orally at a dose of 25 mg on days 1 to 21 of a 28-day cycle. The primary end point was progression-free survival, with disease progression requiring the development of end-organ damage attributable to multiple myeloma and biochemical progression. RESULTS One hundred eighty-two patients were randomly assigned—92 patients to the lenalidomide arm and 90 to the observation arm. Median follow-up is 35 months. Response to therapy was observed in 50% (95% CI, 39% to 61%) of patients in the lenalidomide arm, with no responses in the observation arm. Progression-free survival was significantly longer with lenalidomide compared with observation (hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.62; P = .002). One-, 2-, and 3-year progression-free survival was 98%, 93%, and 91% for the lenalidomide arm versus 89%, 76%, and 66% for the observation arm, respectively. Only six deaths have been reported, two in the lenalidomide arm versus four in the observation arm (hazard ratio for death, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.08 to 2.53). Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 25 patients (28%) on lenalidomide. CONCLUSION Early intervention with lenalidomide in smoldering multiple myeloma significantly delays progression to symptomatic multiple myeloma and the development of end-organ damage.

Abstract Background: Patients with chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) have historically had poor outcomes, with overall response rates (ORR) of ~16% for hypomethylating agents (HMA) in first-line registration studies with a median overall survival (OS) of ~4-7 months in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. Allogeneic stem cell transplant is not an option for the majority, due to older age at diagnosis and comorbidities. Tagraxofusp (Elzonris™, SL-401) is a novel targeted therapy directed to the interleukin-3 receptor-α (CD123), a target expressed on a variety of malignancies. In CMML, CD123 is expressed on malignant progenitor cells as well as microenvironmental plasmacytoid dendritic cell (pDC) infiltrates, now shown to be part of the malignant clone (Solary, EHA 2018). We thus hypothesized that therapeutic targeting of CD123-expressing malignant cells and infiltrating clonal pDCs may offer a novel therapeutic approach. Tagraxofusp has already demonstrated high levels of clinical activity against blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN), a CD123+ malignancy derived from pDCs. Methods: This multicenter, two-stage Phase 1/2 trial is enrolling patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) CMML or other myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). Primary objectives include assessment of safety, determining optimal dose/regimen, and evaluating efficacy outcomes in patients with r/r CMML. In the Stage 1 dose escalation cohort (completed), tagraxofusp was administered as a daily IV infusion at 7, 9, and 12 mcg/kg/day, on days 1-3 every 21 days (cycle 1-4), every 28 days (cycles 5-7), and every 42 days (cycles 8+). In Stage 2 (ongoing), patients received the optimal dose determined in Stage 1 (12 mcg/kg; no MTD reached). Results: As of July 2018, 18 patients with CMML (CMML-1 [n=10]; CMML-2 [n=8]) received tagraxofusp. 13 patients were treated in second-line setting and 5 patients were treated in third-line and beyond, with HMAs being the most commonly administered prior therapy. Median age was 70 years (range 42-80); 78% patients were male. 53% (9/17) of patients had baseline splenomegaly (range: 2 to 22 cm palpable below left costal margin (BCM) by physical exam). Most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were hypoalbuminemia and nausea (each 38%), vomiting (31%), fatigue, edema, and thrombocytopenia (each 25%). Most common ≥grade 3 TRAEs were thrombocytopenia (13%) and nausea (6%). Capillary leak syndrome was reported in 3 patients (19%; all grade 2). 100% (8/8) of patients with baseline splenomegaly had a spleen response, including 75% (6/8) who had reduction in splenomegaly of 50% or more. 60% (3/5) of patients with baseline spleen size ≥5cm had reduction in splenomegaly of 50% or more. Two patients treated with tagraxofusp achieved bone marrow CRs. 43% (6/14) of evaluable patients had a treatment duration of 6 months or more, including one at 8+ and one at 14+ months. Conclusions: Tagraxofusp monotherapy resulted in significant reductions in spleen sizes along with bone marrow morphological responses in relapsed/refractory patients with CMML, with a manageable safety profile. Given CD123 expression on both neoplastic myeloid cells and pDCs infiltrates, tagraxofusp may offer a novel targeted approach for patients with CMML, an area of unmet medical need. Enrollment continues, and updated safety and efficacy data will be presented. A registrational trial in this patient population is planned. Clinical trial information: NCT02268253. Disclosures Ali: Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gupta:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Schiller:Celator/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Lee:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Clinipace: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Yacoub:Cara Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Ardelyx, INC.: Equity Ownership; Dynavax: Equity Ownership; Inycte: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Sardone:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wysowskyj:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shemesh:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Olguin:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Brooks:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dunn:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Verstovsek:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Khoury:Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Pemmaraju:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; novartis: Research Funding; Affymetrix: Research Funding; samus: Research Funding; cellectis: Research Funding; daiichi sankyo: Research Funding; stemline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; plexxikon: Research Funding; abbvie: Research Funding; SagerStrong Foundation: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Patients with myelofibrosis (MF) that have failed or are intolerant to JAK inhibitors (JAKi) have no standard treatment options. Tagraxofusp (Elzonris™; SL-401) is a novel targeted therapy directed to the interleukin-3 receptor-α (CD123), a target expressed on a variety of malignancies, including certain myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) such as MF. CD123 is also expressed on plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs), which reside in the tumor microenvironment and may play a role in promoting growth of MPNs and other malignancies. Therefore, targeting of CD123-expressing malignant cells and/or neighboring pDCs may offer a novel therapeutic approach. Tagraxofusp has demonstrated high levels of clinical activity against blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN), a CD123+ malignancy derived from pDCs. Methods: This multicenter, two-stage Phase 1/2 trial is enrolling patients with MF that were relapsed, refractory, or unable to tolerate JAKi. Primary objectives include assessment of safety, determining optimal dose/regimen, and evaluating efficacy outcomes. In the Stage 1 dose escalation cohort (completed), tagraxofusp was dosed as a daily IV infusion at 7, 9, and 12 mcg/kg/day, on days 1-3 every 21 days (cycle 1-4), every 28 days (cycles 5-7), and every 42 days (cycles 8+). In Stage 2 (ongoing), patients received the optimal dose determined in Stage 1 (12 mcg/kg/day). Results: As of July 2018, 18 patients with MF received tagraxofusp. Five patients were treated in the second line setting and 12 patients were treated in third-line setting, and beyond. Median age was 69 years (range 55-81); 60% patients were female. Of the 18 patients with DIPSS Plus risk group assessment available, 3 patients (17%) were intermediate-1, 10 patients (55%) were intermediate-2, and 5 patients (28%) were high-risk. Median platelet count was 66 K/uL (range 15-579). 70% (14/20) of patients had baseline platelets <100K/uL, of which 6 patients had platelets <50K/uL at study entry. 89% (17/19) of patients had baseline splenomegaly defined as palpable spleen 5 cm or more below costal margin (BCM) by physical exam. Most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) include hypoalbuminemia and thrombocytopenia (each 27%), and alanine aminotransferase increased, anemia, dizziness, fatigue, headache and nausea (each 20%). Most common ≥grade 3 TRAEs include anemia (20%) and thrombocytopenia and fatigue (each 7%). Capillary leak syndrome was reported in 1 patient (5%; grade 3). 50% (6/12) of evaluable patients, with baseline spleen size 5 cm or more BCM, had a spleen response, of which 33% (4/12) had splenomegaly reduction by 33% or more and 25% (3/12) had splenomegaly reduction by 35% or more. 50% (3/6) of patients with spleen response had treatment duration 8+ months, including 8+, 12+ and 14+ months (all 3 ongoing). Four patients with baseline thrombocytopenia had treatment durations 8+ months, 3 of which are ongoing. Conclusions: Tagraxofusp monotherapy demonstrated improvements in splenomegaly, with a manageable safety profile, in patients with relapsed/refractory MF, an area of unmet medical need. Given CD123 expression on myeloid neoplastic cells and pDCs in the tumor microenvironment, tagraxofusp may offer a novel targeted approach for MF patients. Enrollment continues, and updated safety and efficacy data will be presented. Registrational designs are being evaluated. Clinical trial information: NCT02268253. Disclosures Pemmaraju: celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; abbvie: Research Funding; cellectis: Research Funding; stemline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; samus: Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; Affymetrix: Research Funding; SagerStrong Foundation: Research Funding; plexxikon: Research Funding; daiichi sankyo: Research Funding. Gupta:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Schiller:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celator/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Lee:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Clinipace: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Yacoub:Ardelyx, INC.: Equity Ownership; Cara Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Dynavax: Equity Ownership; Inycte: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Ali:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sardone:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wysowskyj:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shemesh:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Olguin:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Brooks:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dunn:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Verstovsek:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Khoury:Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding.

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 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 Background: CXCR4 is a chemokine receptor over-expressed on > 75% of cancers, including myeloid leukemia blasts. Ulocuplumab (BMS- 936564) is a first in class, fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody which inhibits the binding of CXCR4 to CXCL12, resulting in the mobilization of leukocytes from the bone marrow to the peripheral blood. Ulocuplumab also induces apoptosis of CXCR4+ cells in clinicial samples (i.e., leukemia blasts) and in in vitro experiments (e.g. in Tregs). It is thus hypothesized that Ulocuplumab may induce the mobilization and apoptosis of myeloid blasts & immunosuppressive cells which could improve the overall response rate to chemotherapy Objective: To conduct a first-in-man phase I dose escalation/ expansion trial to determine the safety, pharmacology, and clinical benefit of Ulocuplumab in relapsed/refractory AML Results: Seventy three subjects (median age, 58 yrs; range, 21-79 y) with relapsed/refractory AML were treated with Ulocuplumab and MEC [mitoxantrone, 8 mg/m2; etoposide , 100 mg/m2; and cytarabine, 1 g/ m2; i.v. d 1-5]. Thirty subjects in escalation received a single infusion of Ulocuplumab (doses of 0.3, 1, 3, or 10 mg/kg) one week prior to starting MEC and 3 additional weekly doses per MEC cycle thereafter (starting on Day 1). Ulocuplumab was escalated to a maximum of 10 mg/kg without any dose-limiting toxicity during monotherapy or in combination with MEC in the 1st cycle. In expansion phase, 43 patients were similarly treated with10 mg/kg Ulocuplumab and MEC. The overall complete remission and complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery rate (CR/CRi) was 51%. Subjects with first CR > 6 months had better ORR (16/23, 70%) than those with CR1 ≤6 months or primary induction failure (6/20, 30%). Of note, four subjects had CR/CRi after a single dose of Ulocuplumab monotherapy. Transient, mild/moderate thrombocytopenia was the only treatment-related AE documented with Ulocuplumab monotherapy. Only one subject presented a mild infusion reaction on Cycle 1 Day 1. The safety profile in combination with MEC was similar to MEC alone as was the 60 day all-cause mortality (16.3%). A median 2- and 5-fold mobilization of leukocytes and leukemic blasts into the peripheral circulation was reported at day 8, respectively. There was a trend demonstrating that higher CXCR4 expression on AML blasts correlated with a positive clinical response. Reversible and manageable hyperleukoctosis occurred in one subject. Conclusions: This study shows that the blockade of the CXCR4-CXCL12 axis with Ulocuplumab has antileukemic activity and safely improves the historic response rate achieved with MEC alone (i.e.,24-28%). Disclosures Becker: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Etoposide is indicated in the management of refractory testicular tumors and small cell lung cancer. . Foran:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Altman:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Yacoub:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Castro:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Sabbatini:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Dilea:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Wade:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Xing:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Gutierrez:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Smith:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding.

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.