Citations

PURPOSETo estimate age-specific relative and absolute cancer risks of breast cancer and to estimate risks of ovarian, pancreatic, male breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers associated with germline PALB2 pathogenic variants (PVs) because these risks have not been extensively characterized.METHODSWe analyzed data from 524 families with PALB2 PVs from 21 countries. Complex segregation analysis was used to estimate relative risks (RRs; relative to country-specific population incidences) and absolute risks of cancers. The models allowed for residual familial aggregation of breast and ovarian cancer and were adjusted for the family-specific ascertainment schemes.RESULTSWe found associations between PALB2 PVs and risk of female breast cancer (RR, 7.18; 95% CI, 5.82 to 8.85; P = 6.5 × 10−76), ovarian cancer (RR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.40 to 6.04; P = 4.1 × 10−3), pancreatic cancer (RR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.24 to 4.50; P = 8.7 × 10−3), and male breast cancer (RR, 7.34; 95% CI, 1.28 to 42.18; P = 2.6 × 10−2). There was no evidence for increased risks of prostate or colorectal cancer. The breast cancer RRs declined with age ( P for trend = 2.0 × 10−3). After adjusting for family ascertainment, breast cancer risk estimates on the basis of multiple case families were similar to the estimates from families ascertained through population-based studies ( P for difference = .41). On the basis of the combined data, the estimated risks to age 80 years were 53% (95% CI, 44% to 63%) for female breast cancer, 5% (95% CI, 2% to 10%) for ovarian cancer, 2%-3% (95% CI females, 1% to 4%; 95% CI males, 2% to 5%) for pancreatic cancer, and 1% (95% CI, 0.2% to 5%) for male breast cancer.CONCLUSIONThese results confirm PALB2 as a major breast cancer susceptibility gene and establish substantial associations between germline PALB2 PVs and ovarian, pancreatic, and male breast cancers. These findings will facilitate incorporation of PALB2 into risk prediction models and optimize the clinical cancer risk management of PALB2 PV carriers.

Objective The clinical benefit of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) has never been reported in absolute measures. The aim of this study was to assess the number needed to treat (NNT) with UDCA to prevent liver transplantation (LT) or death among patients with PBC. Methods The NNT was calculated based on the untreated LT-free survival and HR of UDCA with respect to LT or death as derived from inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted Cox proportional hazard analyses within the Global PBC Study Group database. Results We included 3902 patients with a median follow-up of 7.8 (4.1–12.1) years. The overall HR of UDCA was 0.46 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.52) and the 5-year LT-free survival without UDCA was 81% (95% CI 79 to 82). The NNT to prevent one LT or death within 5 years (NNT5y) was 11 (95% CI 9 to 13). Although the HR of UDCA was similar for patients with and without cirrhosis (0.33 vs 0.31), the NNT5y was 4 (95% CI 3 to 5) and 20 (95% CI 14 to 34), respectively. Among patients with low alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (≤2× the upper limit of normal (ULN)), intermediate ALP (2–4× ULN) and high ALP (>4× ULN), the NNT5y to prevent one LT or death was 26 (95% CI 15 to 70), 11 (95% CI 8 to 17) and 5 (95% CI 4 to 8), respectively. Conclusion The absolute clinical efficacy of UDCA with respect to LT or death varied with baseline prognostic characteristics, but was high throughout. These findings strongly emphasise the incentive to promptly initiate UDCA treatment in all patients with PBC and may improve patient compliance.

Overexpression and long terminal repeat (LTR) polymorphism of the HRES‑1/Rab4 human endogenous retrovirus locus have been associated with T cell activation and disease manifestations in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Although genomic DNA methylation is diminished overall in SLE, its role in HRES-1/Rab4 expression is unknown. Therefore, we determined how lupus-associated polymorphic rs451401 alleles of the LTR regulate transcription from the HRES-1/Rab4 promoter and thus affect T cell activation. The results showed that cytosine –119 is hypermethylated while cytosine –51 of the promoter and the LTR enhancer are hypomethylated in SLE. Pharmacologic or genetic inactivation of DNA methyltransferase 1 augmented the expression of HRES-1/Rab4. The minimal promoter was selectively recognized by metabolic stress sensor NRF1 when cytosine –119 but not cytosine –51 was methylated, and NRF1 stimulated HRES-1/Rab4 expression in human T cells. In turn, IRF2 and PSIP1 bound to the LTR enhancer and exerted control over HRES-1/Rab4 expression in rs451401 genotype– and methylation-dependent manners. The LTR enhancer conferred markedly greater expression of HRES-1/Rab4 in subjects with rs451401CC over rs451401GG alleles that in turn promoted mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) activation upon T cell receptor stimulation. HRES-1/Rab4 alone robustly activated mTOR in human T cells. These findings identify HRES-1/Rab4 as a methylation- and rs451401 allele–dependent transducer of environmental stress and controller of T cell activation.

Abstract Philadelphia-negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms (MPN), including Polycythemia Vera (PV), Essential Thrombocythemia (ET), Myelofibrosis (Primary [PMF] and secondary to PV and ET [PPV-, PET-MF] and unclassified MPN (U-MPN), are associated with an increased risk of venous thrombosis in unusual sites, such as splanchnic vessels (SVT). SVT can lead to complications such as portal hypertension, esophageal and gastric varices, ascites,hepatic failure and biliopathy. According to a meta-analysis MPN is the underlying cause of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in 31.5% and Budd Chiari syndrome (BCS) in 40.9% of cases (Smalberg, 2012); a more in-depth analysis of clinical characteristics and evolution of MPN-associated SVT has been hampered by heterogeneity of cohorts comprising small number of cases. We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in patients (pts) with SVT associated with WHO2008-diagnosed MPN, with the aim to describe patient characteristics, disease course and prognostic factors with potential implications for clinical practice. Data were collected from 16 international hematologic centers in the framework of the Italian AGIMM and the IWG-MRT groups. We collected 519 cases of pts with PVT, splenic or mesenteric vein thrombosis (75.1%) and BCS (24.9%) associated with MPN. We used as comparator a cohort of 1686 controls (Ctr) represented by MPN without (w/o) SVT: 741 ET (43.9%), 684 PV (39.7%), 261 PMF (15.5%). Frequency of MPN associated with SVT was 37.8% ET (n=196), 36.8% PV (n=191), 15.4% MF (n=80), 10% U-MPN (n=52). Median follow-up was 89.9 months (mo) (range 0.5-430). For SVT vs Ctr group females were 54.5% vs 44.4% in PV (P=0.001), 68.4 vs 63.5% (p=0.13) in ET, 63.7% vs 29.1% in PMF (p<0.0001); median age at MPN diagnosis (dg) was 43.5 yr (range 12-90) vs 60.6 yr (range 12-93) (p<0.0001). Age at SVT dg was 44 yr (range 15-85). In 240 cases (46.7%) MPN and SVT dg were coincident, in 121 (23.6%) SVT occurred before MPN dg (median 26 mo, range 4-307) and in 153 (29.8%) during MPN follow up (median 68 mo, range 4-362). JAK2V617F mutation was found in 94% PV vs 94% in Ctr, 84% vs 61% ET (p<0.0001), 88.1% vs 68% PMF (p=0.006) and in 93% U-MPN. Erythropoietin-independent colonies (EEC) were evaluated in 111 SVT pts and found in 80 (72%), accounting for 38/48 PV (79%), 31/44 ET (70.5%), 9/12 PMF (75%) and 2/7 U-MPN (28.6%). At dg, SVT PV pts had lower hemoglobin levels than Ctr: median was 17.4 g/dL vs 18.5 g/dL (p<0.0001) in male, 16.9 g/dL vs 17.7 g/dL (p=0.0006) in female. A co-existing thrombophilic status was found in 38.5% SVT vs 11.8% of Ctr (p<0.0001). Recurrent SVT occurred in 12.2% of pts with a rate of 1.6% person/year (CI 1.2-2.1); risk of venous thrombosis other than SVT was increased in SVT group vs Ctr (p=0.02), with no difference for arterial thrombosis. Hemorrhage was more frequent in SVT group (32%) vs Ctr (7.2%)(p<0.0001), mainly related to esophageal varices, which were present in 66.9% of SVT pts. There was no difference in evolution to MF and acute leukemia (AL) for PV and ET pts with and w/o SVT, while risk of AL was lower in MF with SVT (p<0.00001). Overall survival was shorter in ET pts with SVT vs Ctr (p<0.0001). In PMF survival was better in SVT group (p<0.00001) and was associated with a higher proportion of SVT pts in lowest risk categories: IPSS low 65%, intermediate-1 20%, intermediate-2 10% and high 5% compared with 15%, 34%, 25% and 26% in Ctr group. At last FU, 79/519 pts (15.2%) had died; causes of death were evolution to AL (15.4%), other cancers (13.8%), disease progression without AL (10.8%), SVT (10.8%), hepatic failure and venous thrombosis other than SVT (7.7% each), heart failure and arterial thrombosis (6.2% each), hemorrhage (5.5%), renal failure and infection (4.6% each). Therapy after SVT included anticoagulation in 77%, antiaggregant in 21.2% and combination in 1.8%; 70% received cytotoxic drugs; 12.4% were treated with transjugular porto-systemic shunt. Beta blocker therapy was used in 48.5% of pts and correlated with improved survival (p=0.041) MPN associated with SVT correlated with younger age and female sex and might antedate the clinical phenotype in a quarter of the patients. MPN-associated SVT equally affected PV and ET, was more likely to occur in the presence of JAK2V617F or underlying thrombophilia and predicted recurrent venous but not arterial thrombosis. The apparent association of SVT with better or worse prognosis in PMF and ET, respectively, requires further investigation. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Introduction: Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody targeting programmed death receptor-1, has recently been FDA approved for classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) that has relapsed or progressed after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and post-transplantation brentuximab vedotin (BV). CheckMate 205 (NCT02181738) is a phase 2, international, multicohort study evaluating nivolumab monotherapy in patients with cHL after failure of ASCT. At minimum 6 months' follow-up of Cohort B (205B) which included patients who had received BV after disease recurrence following ASCT, objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiologic review committee (IRRC) was 66% and 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) was 77%, with an acceptable safety profile (Younes et al. Lancet Oncol 2016; Jul 20 [Epub ahead of print]). Here we report outcomes with longer follow-up (minimum 12-month follow-up) in 205B. Primary results from Cohort A, which enrolled patients who relapsed after ASCT but were BV-naïve, will also be presented for the first time as data were not available at time of abstract submission. Methods: CheckMate 205 was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with cHL who relapsed after ASCT in 3 cohorts: 205A (BV-naive patients; n = 63); 205B (BV after failed ASCT; n = 80); 205C (BV at any time prior to study drug; n = 100). Nivolumab was given at 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity in 205A and 205B. The primary endpoint was IRRC-assessed ORR. Results: 80 patients were treated in Cohort 205B; the median age was 37 years (range 18-72). Patients had received a median of 4 prior regimens (range 3-15). At data cut-off (April 2016) with median duration of follow-up of 15.4 months (range 1.9-18.5), 43 patients (54%) still remained on therapy. IRRC-assessed ORR for patients in 205B was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56%, 78%). CR and partial response (PR) rates per IRRC were 8% (3%, 16%) and 60% (48%, 71%), respectively. With longer follow-up, the median duration of response was prolonged to 13.1 months (95% CI, 8.7, not reached; range, 0.0+, 14.2+). The median duration of CR (DOCR) was not reached (95% CI, 4.6, not available [NA]; range, 0.7+, 10.4+) and the median duration of PR was 13.1 months (95% CI, 7.79, NA; range, 0.0+, 13.4+) (Table 1). IRRC median PFS was 14.8 months (95% CI, 11.3 months, NA); 12-month PFS was 54.6% (95% CI, 40.9%, 66.4%), and 12-month overall survival (OS) was 94.9% (median OS not reached). Of 37 patients (46%) who discontinued nivolumab, the most common reasons were disease progression (n = 19 [24%]), allogeneic stem cell transplant (n = 7 [9%]) and adverse events (n = 5 [6%]). Seventy-four patients (93%) had drug-related adverse events (AEs) of any grade. The most common drug-related AEs were fatigue (28%), infusion reaction (20%), arthralgia (15%), and rash (15%). 29% of patients had Grade 3-4 drug-related AEs; the most common were increased lipase (8%), neutropenia (5%), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (4%). The most common serious AEs were pyrexia, pneumonia, tumor progression, arrhythmia, infusion reaction, and meningitis (≤4% each). Conclusions: In this report with extended 12-month follow-up, longer remissions are noted following nivolumab monotherapy in relapsed cHL, including durable PRs in heavily pretreated patients. Nivolumab has an acceptable safety profile, similar to previously reported. Primary results following nivolumab monotherapy in BV-naïve patients with cHL who progressed after ASCT (Cohort 205A) will also be presented at the meeting. Study funding: Study funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Professional writing assistance was provided by K. Jesien of Caudex and funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Disclosures Timmerman: Seattle Genetics, Genmab, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kite Pharma, Valor Biopharmaceuticals, Janssen: Research Funding. Engert:Takeda, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Armand:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sequenta Inc: Research Funding. Collins:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kuruvilla:Roche Canada: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria. Cohen:Millennium/Takeda: 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; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Trneny:Roche, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche, Celgene: Research Funding. De Boer:NKI-AVL: Employment. Shipp:Cell Signaling: Honoraria; Merck, Gilead, Takeda: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Bayer: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rodig:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Perkin Elmer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kato:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Sumbul:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Ansell:BMS, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Celldex and Affimed: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications are commonly encountered in uncontrolled essential thrombocythemia (ET). Both anagrelide and hydroxyurea (HU) have proven efficacious in cytoreduction as well as reducing these events and remain first line therapy for most high-risk ET patients. Independent of their role in risk-reduction, little is known about how these therapies impact patient symptomatology or quality of life. In this study, we compared the clinical and symptomatic profiles of ET patients receiving HU or anagrelide against patients with no previous experience with these agents. Methods: Data was assessed from a prospectively collected international database of ET patients in which demographics, disease features, and ET symptoms utilizing the myeloproliferative neoplasm symptom assessment form (MPN-SAF; Scherber et al, 2011). The MPN-SAF includes the patient's perceptions of common MPN-related symptoms and overall quality of life (QOL) on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale. Total symptom score (TSS) was computed based on symptom items using the published scoring algorithm on a 0 (all reported symptoms absent) to 100 (all reported symptoms worst imaginable) scale. ET risk scores were calculated using the IPSET scoring algorithm (Passamonti 2012). Thrombocytopenia was defined as a platelet count <100 x 10(9)/L, anemia was defined as hemoglobin<10 g/dL and leukopenia was defined as a white blood cell count <4.0 x 10(9)/L. Associations between the MPN-SAF individual symptoms were investigated using chi-square test for categorical data and ANOVA F-test for continuous variables. Results Hydroxyurea vs. HU Naive A total of 402 ET patients with active HU use were compared to 392 ET patients with no history of HU use. Patients using HU were older (63.5 years vs. 52.3 years, p<0.001) and had a greater concentration of both high risk (24.9% vs. 11.4%, p=0.001) and intermediate risk (53.9% vs 38.4%, p<0.001) patients. They also had a higher rate of prior thrombosis (29.8% vs 11.3%, p<0.001) and leukopenia (10.1% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001). No differences were noted between gender, a history of prior hemorrhage, red blood cell transfusion requirements, or the presence of anemia/thrombocytopenia. In comparing symptom profiles, no significant differences were noted between TSS or individual symptoms with the exception of slightly more severe cough in HU patients (1.5 vs. 1.1, p=0.02, Figure 1). Anagrelide vs. Anagrelide Naive A total of 49 ET patients with active anagrelide use were compared to 794 ET patients with no history of anagrelide use. Patients using anagrelide had a longer mean disease duration (8.1 years vs. 5.8 years) and were more anemic (9.1% vs. 1.2%, p<0.001). No differences were noted between age, gender, risk scores, the presence of leukopenia/thrombocytopenia, a history of prior thrombosis or hemorrhage complications or red blood cell transfusion requirements. Additionally, there were no significant differences between TSS or individual symptom items (Figure 1). HU vs. Anagrelide A total of 402 patients currently using HU were compared to 39 patients currently using anagrelide. Overall, HU users were slightly older (63.5 years vs. 55.1 years, p<0.001) with a greater population of patients meeting high risk criteria (24.9% vs. 2.8%, p=0.002) and having a history of prior thrombosis (29.8% vs. 12.8%, p=0.02). Patients receiving anagrelide had a slightly longer disease duration (8.2 years vs. 6.0 years, p=0.0446). In comparing symptom profiles, no differences were noted in TSS or individual symptom items between cohorts. Discussion In this retrospective analysis, it does not appear cytoreduction with either HU and/or anagrelide has a significant impact on ET symptom burden despite reducing vascular events. Importantly, the higher risk scores in HU patients did not translate directly into greater patient symptomatology supporting previous studies demonstrating a poor association between these two items. Prospective trials measuring ET symptom change, in the setting of randomized trials will better quantify impact of cytoreduction on symptom burden as well as quantify impact of newer agents such as interferon or jak inhibition. Figure 1. Symptom Comparisons Between HU, Anagrelide and Other Therapy Figure 1. Symptom Comparisons Between HU, Anagrelide and Other Therapy Disclosures Kiladjian: Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Travel grant; Research Funding paid to institution (Hôpital Saint-Louis et Université Paris Diderot); Novartis: Consultancy. Zweegman:Takeda: 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, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Harrison:Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cervantes:Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; CTI-Baxter: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Barbui:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Etienne:ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress Travel/Accomodations, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Roy:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. te Boekhorst:Novartis: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Research Funding paid to institution (University of Florence), Research Funding; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa:Novartis. Research- incyte, Gilead, cti, Genentech, promedior, NS Pharma: Consultancy.

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

Background: CMML is a heterogeneous disease with overlapping features of MDS and MPN. Several risk scores have been proposed in CMML, including CPSS (Such Blood 2013) that identifies 4 risk groups (low, intermediate-1 [int-1], int-2 and high risk) with median overall survival (OS) ranging from 12 months to > 5 years. HSCT is the only curative treatment in CMML, with an expected 20-40% post-transplantation OS. Current guidelines, common to MDS and CMML recommend rapidly transplanting higher-risk CMML and delaying transplant in lower-risk disease (de Witte Blood 2017). Retrospective transplant studies have shown better outcome in lower-risk CMML (Liu et al BBMT 2017). Whether this translates into a survival benefit compared to a delayed transplant strategy requires prospective studies. Multistate models based on retrospective data from transplant and non-transplant patients (pts) have addressed similar issues in MDS (Koreth JCO 2013, Della Porta Leukemia 2017). Through a large collaborative study, we address the question of optimal timing for HSCT in CMML patients through a similar large international collaborative study. Method: We retrospectively selected pts from 2 registries: International MDS/MPN Working Group (IWG cohort, Padron Blood Cancer J 2015) and EBMT with the following criteria: WHO-defined CMML, age ≤ 70y, ECOG 0-2, diagnosis after 2000, available CPSS at the time of diagnosis. Different states were considered in higher- (CPSS int-2 and high) and lower- risk (CPSS low/int-1) pts: diagnosis, AML transformation, transplantation and death. IWG data was used to estimate transition probabilities from diagnosis to AML, transplantation and death and from AML to transplantation and death. EBMT data was used for transplantation to death transitions (Figure 1). Results: 719 and 403 pts were identified in the IWG and EMBT registry, respectively (resp). Median age was 64 (range 16-70) in IWG and 58 (19-70) years in EBMT cohort. Patients were male in 69% and 67% of IWG and EBMT cohorts, respectively (resp). CPSS was low in 22% and 13%, int-1 in 31% and 31%, int-2 in 40% and 45% and high in 8% and 11% of the IWG and EBMT pts, resp. In the IWG cohort, the 1 year cumulative incidence of transformation into AML were 7.3% and 18.2% in lower and higher risk patients, resp. Among the 719 pts from IWG, 102 received HSCT. At the time of diagnosis the expected life time of higher risk (int-2 and high) patients was 25.2 months while it was 44.1 months in lower risk (int-1 and low) patients. Table 1 reports gain or loss in expected life time (until 60 months after diagnosis) for transplantation at different intervals from diagnosis (within 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) for patients who have survived and not transformed to AML until the prediction time point, taking into account CPSS at diagnosis. Expected life time is also given separately for higher risk pts after transformation into AML. There was a modest gain of life expectancy with transplantation in higher risk patients (CPSS int-2 and high) while it was not the case in lower risk patients. The survival gain in higher risk pts with HSCT rose from 1.11 at 6 months to 3.4 months at 24 months. There was also a survival benefit of HSCT in higher risk pts who were transformed to AML during their follow-up which was even higher in terms of gain of months: from 9.89 month if HSCT performed within 6 months to 14.25 months if performed within 18 months. Of note, the loss of survival in lower risk patients who underwent HSCT decreased over time: 11.1 months if HSCT is performed within 6 months and 3.7 months if HSCT is performed within 24 months, probably owing to transition to higher-risk CMML at this stage in some pts, a transition that could not be captured in the present dataset. Conclusion: For the first time, using a multistate model, we could provide evidence that the transplant benefit in CMML is restricted to higher-risk pts, in line with findings in MDS and current guidelines. More analyses will be performed to analyze other subgroups of patients, especially regarding their risk (other classification than CPSS, the role of somatic mutation…). More studies are needed to analyze the role of pre HSCT treatment and its potential impact on post-transplant outcome. Disclosures Robin: Novartis Neovii: Research Funding. Beelen:Medac GmbH Wedel Germany: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fenaux:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding. Kroeger:Riemser: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medac: Honoraria; DKMS: Research Funding; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ: Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria. Nazha:Tolero, Karyopharma: Honoraria; MEI: Other: Data monitoring Committee; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmacutical: Research Funding; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Rampal:Agios, Apexx, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, Constellation, and Jazz: Consultancy; Constellation, Incyte, and Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Finke:Riemser: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau; Neovii: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau; Medac: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau. Komrokji:Agios: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; JAZZ: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy. Killick:JAZZ: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ALEXION: Honoraria. Blaise:Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Garcia-Manero:Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Patnaik:Stem Line Pharmaceuticals.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk and severity of prostate cancer. We evaluated whether PSVs in BRCA1/2 were associated with risk of overall prostate cancer or high grade (Gleason 8+) prostate cancer using an international sample of 65 BRCA1 and 171 BRCA2 male PSV carriers with prostate cancer, and 3,388 BRCA1 and 2,880 BRCA2 male PSV carriers without prostate cancer. PSVs in the 3′ region of BRCA2 (c.7914+) were significantly associated with elevated risk of prostate cancer compared with reference bin c.1001-c.7913 [HR = 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25–2.52; P = 0.001], as well as elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.63–5.95; P = 0.001). c.756-c.1000 was also associated with elevated prostate cancer risk (HR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.71–4.68; P = 0.00004) and elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 4.95; 95% CI, 2.12–11.54; P = 0.0002). No genotype–phenotype associations were detected for PSVs in BRCA1. These results demonstrate that specific BRCA2 PSVs may be associated with elevated risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. Significance: Aggressive prostate cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers may vary according to the specific BRCA2 mutation inherited by the at-risk individual.