Citations

Abstract Background : Polycythemia vera (PV) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by erythrocytosis, and in many cases leukocytosis and thrombocytosis. PV is driven by activating mutations in the JAK/STAT pathway, primarily JAK2V617F. For high-risk patients, a commonly used first-line therapy is hydroxyurea (HU); however, a subgroup of patients become intolerant of or resistant to HU. The phase 3 RESPONSE trial compared ruxolitinib (RUX) and best available therapy (BAT) in patients with PV who were intolerant of or resistant to HU (modified European LeukemiaNet criteria). Patients randomized in the BAT arm were permitted to cross over to receive RUX from Week 32 of the study. The results of the primary analysis comparing RUX to BAT prior to crossover have been reported, in which RUX was superior to BAT in achieving hematocrit control, reductions in spleen volume, and improvements in PV-related symptoms. This current analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of RUX treatment in patients who crossed over from BAT relative to their original BAT treatment and relative to those originally randomized to RUX. Methods : Enrollment criteria included PV diagnosis, age ≥18 years, resistance to or intolerance of HU, splenomegaly, and phlebotomy requirement to control hematocrit. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive open-label RUX 10 mg BID or BAT administered based on investigator judgment. BAT may have included HU, interferon/pegylated interferon, pipobroman, anagrelide, immunomodulators (eg, lenalidomide or thalidomide), or no medication. The protocol allowed for dose modifications (RUX, 5-mg BID increments [25 mg BID max]; BAT was adjusted per investigator judgment). Patients in the BAT group could cross over to RUX from Week 32 if they had not met the primary endpoint, or after Week 32 due to protocol-defined disease progression. The primary study endpoint was a composite of hematocrit control and a ≥35% reduction in spleen size at Week 32. Hematocrit was assessed at screening, every 2 weeks from Day 1 to Week 12, followed by every 4 weeks until Week 32, and 2, 4, 6, 8, 16, 24, and 32 weeks following crossover. Spleen volume was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging at screening and study Weeks 16, 32, 48, 64, 80 and every 32 weeks thereafter. The number of phlebotomy procedures was evaluated over time in each group. Results : A total of 110 patients were randomized to RUX and 112 to BAT; study discontinuation by Week 32 (before crossover was permitted) was 11% in both groups. However, most patients in the BAT arm crossed over to receive RUX treatment immediately after the Week 32 visit (84% between Weeks 32 and 48); only 3% of patients remained in the BAT arm compared with 85% in the RUX arm at the time of the data analysis (median 81-week follow-up). With up to 32 weeks on BAT therapy, 25% of patients in this group did not require a phlebotomy; in contrast, with up to 32 weeks on RUX, 79% of patients after crossover and 74% of patients initially randomized to RUX did not require phlebotomy. The number of phlebotomy procedures adjusted for 100 patient-years during BAT therapy was 196.8 vs 38.5 after crossover to RUX and 34.1 on randomized RUX treatment. Reduction in spleen volume from baseline at any visit occurred in 49% of patients receiving BAT, vs 73% of patients after crossover to RUX and 88% of patients initially randomized to RUX. The proportion of patients achieving at least a 35% reduction in spleen volume (best percentage change) was 1.8% during BAT treatment vs 38.5% after crossover to RUX and 60.0% during randomized RUX treatment. Conclusion : Treatment with RUX after crossover from BAT resulted in improved clinical outcomes compared with original BAT treatment. These findings support the primary RESPONSE results and further validate the efficacy of RUX in this patient population. Disclosures Kiladjian: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Ruxolitinib is a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with intermediate or high-risk myelofibrosis, including primary myelofibrosis, post polycythemia vera myelofibrosis, and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Masszi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Durrant:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Harrison:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Jones:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. He:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Li:Novartis Pharmaceuticals : Employment, Equity Ownership. Habr:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Most patients with chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) are elderly and age >65 years is an adverse prognostic factor (JCO 2013;31:2428). Our objective in the current study was to examine risk factors for survival and treatment outcome in younger patients (age ≤65 years), with emphasis on molecular and cytogenetic markers. Methods: DNA analysis for SRSF2, SF3B1, U2AF1, ASXL1 and SETBP1 mutations was carried out on specimens obtained at time of diagnosis. We used both conventional and revised (see accompanying ASH 2014 abstract) cytogenetic risk models to query their application in the current study population. Treatment data included outcome of allogeneic stem cell transplant (HCT) and treatment with hypomethylating agents (HMA), including azacitidine (AZA) and decitabine (DAC). Results: Survival: 259 patients (median age 59 years, range 18-65; 75% males) with WHO-defined CMML and age≤ 65 years were included in the study: 108 from the French consortium, 81 Mayo Clinic, 47 Moffitt Cancer Center and 23 University of Milan; 217 (84%) patients had CMML-1 and the remainder CMML-2. At a median follow-up of 26 months, 124 (48%) deaths and 79 (31 %) leukemic transformations were documented. Mutational frequencies were 34% (61/178) for ASXL1, 45% (74/165) for SRSF2, and 4% (7/168) for SETBP1. Cytogenetic data was available in 248 of 259 study patients; 56 (23%) patients displayed abnormal karyotype and the revised cytogenetic risk designations included 196 (80%) low, 29 (12%) intermediate, and 23 (9%) high. In univariate analysis, lower hemoglobin (p<0.0001), higher WBC (p=0.005), higher monocyte count (AMC) (P=0.004), lower platelet count (p=0.004), presence of circulating immature myeloid cells (IMC) (p=0.004), presence of circulating blasts (p<0.0001), bone marrow (BM) blasts ≥10% (p=0.005), WHO morphological subtype (p=0.0003), Spanish cytogenetic risk stratification (p=0.0002), revised Mayo cytogenetic risk stratification (p<0.0001), SRSF2 (p=0.03) and ASXL1 (p=0.03) mutational status predicted shortened survival. In multivariable analysis, lower hemoglobin (p<0.0002), presence of circulating blasts (p<0.0001), SRSF2 (p=0.03) and ASXL1mutational status (p=0.04) retained their negative prognostic impact. A similar analysis identified circulating IMC (p<0.0001), presence of circulating blasts (p<0.0001), and BM blast % (p=0.0002) as predictors of blast transformation (BT). Response to hypomethylating agents: Seventy-two (28%) patients received HMA (AZA-46, DAC-26, both-6). In the AZA group, median number of cycles was 5 (range; 1-44), median duration of therapy 5 months (range;1-59) with 4 (6%) receiving DAC on progression and 26 (42%) proceeding with HCT. Over-all response rate (ORR) was 25% (6/24) and included complete response (CR) in 2 (8%) patients, partial response (PR) in 2 (8%) and hematological improvement in 2 (8%). In the DAC group, median number of cycles was 6 (2-25), median duration of therapy 5 months (range;1-49), with 2 (8%) receiving AZA on progression; ORR was 50% (7/14) and included CR in 4 (29%) patients, PR in 1 (7%) and HI in 2 (14%). ASXL1 (p=0.4), SRSF2 (p=0.7) mutational status or karyotype (p=0.5 for Spanish and 0.3 for revised Mayo) did not correlate with response to HMA. Allogeneic stem cell transplant: 50 patients underwent HCT. Conditioning regimen was reported in 41 patients and included myeloablative (MA) in 14 (34%) (median age 51 years, 27-62) and reduced intensity (RIC) in 27 (66%) (median age 48 years, 18-65). Donor source was documented in 40 patients and included matched related in 19 (48%), matched unrelated in 12 (30%), mismatched unrelated in 4, haploidentical in 2 and umbilical cord transplant in one. 27 (63%) patients had chronic GVHD (50% in MA group and 80% in the RIC group). Among 40 evaluable patients, 23 (57%) achieved CR, 8 (21%) relapsed and 8 (21%) died from transplant-related complications. ASXL1 (p=0.9), SRSF2 (p=0.5) mutational status or karyotype (p=0.2 for Spanish and 0.3 for revised Mayo) did not affect transplant outcome. Conclusions: Survival in young CMML patients is poor and even worse in the presence of SRSF2 or ASXL1 mutations, anemia or circulating blasts. Treatment outcome was more impressive with transplant than it was with HMA and neither was influenced by karyotype or ASXL1/SRSF2 mutational status. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background We have previously reported on the high prevalence and severity of challenges with intimacy and sexuality amongst a large international cohort of MPN patients (Emanuel JCO 2012). We sought to further analyze the relationships between issues of intimacy (sexual desire and function), their relationships to MPN disease features, individual MPN symptom prevalence and severity, language, and overall quality of life. Methods Data was collected among an international cohort of patients with MPNs. Subjects completed the BFI, MPN-SAF, and EORTC QLQ-C30 instruments. Surveyed symptoms on the MPN-SAF included the patient’s perceptions of common MPN-related symptoms and overall quality of life (QOL) on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale. Specifically, the MPN-SAF sexuality item asked about “problems with sexual desire or function”. Total symptom score (TSS) was computed based on 10 symptom items using the published scoring algorithm on a 0 (all reported symptoms absent) to 100 (all reported symptoms worst imaginable) scale. Pairwise associations between the MPN-SAF sexuality item and continuous and categorical covariates were investigated using Pearson correlations and analysis of variance/t-tests, respectively. Multivariate regression models were used to investigate impact of groups of covariates on the sexuality item with the final multivariate model selected using forward regression. Results Demographics A total of 1908 MPN patients (essential thrombocythemia=799, polycythemia vera=671, myelofibrosis=432, missing=6) completed the sexuality item. Participants were of typical age (median=60, range 15-94) and gender (female=53%). Overall, 1218 subjects described sexuality related complaints (score >0) with an overall mean symptom score of 3.5 (median=2.0, SD=3.7, range 0-10); 725/1908 (38%) patients had severe sexuality related complaints (score >4). Univariate Analysis Among the QLQ-C30 functioning scales, all domains had similar statistically significant correlations (r=-.26 to -.32, all p<0.001). Among QLQ-C30 symptom scales, all QLQ-C30 symptoms displayed correlations ranging between .08 and .29 (all p<0.001). Among MPN-SAF items, the MPN-SAF sexuality item correlated most significantly with the TSS (r=.41, p<0.001), along with MPN-SAF symptoms (r=.16 to .39; all p<0.001). MPN-SAF sexuality measure significantly differed by anemia (means: absent 3.3, present 4.5; p<0.001), leukopenia (means: absent 3.4, present 4.4; p=0.01), thrombocytopenia (means: absent 3.3, present 4.5; p<0.001), red cell transfusion (means: no 3.5, yes 5.0; p<0.001), MPN subtype (ET mean 3.1, PV mean=3.6, MF mean=4.4; p<0.001) and language (means ranged from 2.4 [Swedish] to 4.6 [Chinese]; p<0.001). MPN-SAF sexuality did not significantly differ by age, gender, prior thrombosis or prior hemorrhage. Multivariate Analysis In a multivariate model of MPN-SAF sexuality containing all QLQ-C30 functioning scales, physical (p=0.001), emotional (p=0.01), cognitive (p=0.005) and social (p=0.002) functioning were all statistically significant. Numerous symptoms were also significant in a multivariate model of MPN-SAF sexuality containing all other MPN-SAF symptoms (all p<0.05; abdominal pain, inactivity, dizziness/vertigo/lightheadedness, insomnia, depression/sad mood, cough, night sweats and overall QOL). The final multivariate model based on forward regression starting with all demographics, clinical variables, and patient-reported QLQ-C30 scales and MPN-SAF items found age, language, QLQ-C30 role functioning and MPN-SAF items (insomnia, depression/sad mood, night sweats and QOL) to be significant (p<0.05). Conclusions Sexuality related complaints have been linked to both physiologic and psychologic origins and are highly prevalent within the MPN population. The results of this study congruently identified close associations between sexuality and function within emotional, cognitive and social domains. Additionally, the correlations of sexuality issues with MPN symptoms and disease features further suggest this item is a key correlate of overall functionality and quality of life. Future investigations into the causative factors and biological correlates of this complaint may assist in addressing this ongoing challenge. Disclosures: Etienne: novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roy:Novartis, BMS: Honoraria. Harrison:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; YM Bioscience: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Shire: Speakers Bureau; S Bio: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Birgegard:Vifor Pharma: Honoraria. Mesa:Eli Lilly and Co: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; NS pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Guadecitabine (SGI-110) is a novel next-generation HMA administered as a small volume subcutaneous (SC) injection which results in extended decitabine exposure. Phase 2 studies have been conducted in TN-AML patients who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy using two different doses and schedules of guadecitabine. We report here a comparative efficacy and safety analysis of the 5-day and 10-day regimens. Methods: TN-AML patients who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy based on age (≥ 65 y), poor performance status (PS 2), comorbidities, or poor risk cytogenetics were enrolled in 2 separate treatment cohorts in the Phase 2 study. In the first cohort, patients were randomized (1:1) to either 60 mg/m2/d or 90 mg/m2/d on Days 1-5 (5-day regimen). In the second cohort, patients were treated with 60 mg/m2/d on Days 1-5 and Days 8-12 (10-day regimen) for up to 4 cycles, followed by 60 mg/m2/d Days 1-5 in subsequent cycles. Cycles were scheduled every 28 days for both regimes with dose reductions/delays allowed based on response and tolerability. Patients remained on treatment as long as they continued to benefit with no unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was the composite Complete Response (CRc): Complete Response (CR) + CR with incomplete platelet recovery (CRp) + CR with incomplete neutrophil recovery (CRi) using modified International Working Group (IWG) criteria (Cheson et al, 2003). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: There was no difference in efficacy or safety between 60 and 90 mg/m2/d on the 5-day regimen (Yee et al, European Hematology Association meeting 2014, S647), so data are reported here for the two doses combined on the 5-day cohort. There were 51 patients treated in the 5-day regimen cohort and 52 treated with the 10-day regimen. There was no statistically significant difference in patient characteristics between the 2 regimens; median age 77.9 vs. 77.3 years ; male 59% vs. 65%; PS 2 or higher 35% vs. 40%; median BM blasts 40.0% vs. 49.5%; poor risk cytogenetics 46% vs. 43% for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts, respectively. Follow up of the 10-day cohort patients was shorter as it started after completion of enrolment of the 5-day cohort. The median follow up was 25.7 and 12.4 months and median number of cycles was 5 (range 1-26) and 3 (range 1-13) for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts, respectively. There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy endpoint, CRc, between the 2 regimens (p=0.43). CRc was achieved in 29/51 patients (57%) on the 5-day regimen (19 CR, 3 CRp, and 7 CRi) and in 25/52 patients (48%) on the 10-day regimen (16 CR, 5 CRp, and 4 CRi). Median OS was 10.5 and 8.7 months for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts, respectively (p=0.89). The 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause mortality rates were not statistically significant between the two cohorts: 5.9%, 15.7%, and 21.6% on the 5-day regimen and 1.9%, 17.3%, and 28.8% on the 10-day regimen. The most common Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of relationship to guadecitabine were: febrile neutropenia 59% vs. 60%, thrombocytopenia 47% vs. 38%, neutropenia 39% vs. 33%, anemia 27% vs. 19%, pneumonia 24% vs. 27%; and sepsis 12% vs. 19%, for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts respectively, none of which was statistically significant. Fifteen patients remain on treatment (5 from the 5-day cohort and 10 from the 10-day cohort). Conclusions: Guadecitabine is clinically active with a good safety profile in TN-AML patients not candidates for intensive chemotherapy. Unlike in relapsed/refractory AML, where the 10-day regimen of guadecitabine showed a trend toward improved efficacy (Roboz et al, Annals of Oncology 25 Supplement 4, 2014), there was no significant difference in either efficacy or safety between the 5-day and 10-day regimens in newly diagnosed AML patients. Guadecitabine 60 mg/m2/d SC Days 1-5 is currently being investigated in an 800-patient multicenter randomized phase 3 study in TN-AML patients unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy (ASTRAL-1 Phase 3 clinical trial: ClinicalTrials.gov reference NCT02348489). Disclosures Kropf: Teva Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. O'Connell:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Astex: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Rizzieri:Teva: Other: ad board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: ad board, Speakers Bureau. Stock:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Savona:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: 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; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenblat:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Berdeja:Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Array: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Wilson:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Lowder:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Taverna:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Issa:Janssen: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Cytoreductive therapy with hydroxyurea (HU) has been considered first line therapy for patients with high risk polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) since the results of the PVSG-08 trial demonstrated thrombotic risk reduction (Fruchtman SM et al 1997) for PV and PT1 for ET (Harrison CN et al 2005). Although HU is well tolerated by most patients and has been shown to reduce thrombotic risk in this setting, concern regarding the leukemogenic potential of this oral ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor balanced by the observation of molecular responses with interferon-α (IFN-α) led us to compare the clinical response and tolerability of pegIFN-α (PEG) and HU in a global, randomized, phase III trial. Methods : MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) enrolled patients with high risk (age >60 years, history of thrombosis, extreme thrombocytosis, symptomatic splenomegaly, uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors), newly diagnosed (<5 years), WHO defined ET/PV that were treatment naïve (HU <3 months) and randomized (1:1) to PEG or HU. The primary endpoint was complete hematologic response (CHR) rate by European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria between the arms after 12 months of therapy. A planned interim analysis based on intent-to-treat with testing boundaries for efficacy and futility was conducted after 75 patients were on study for 12 months. Response assessment by ELN criteria were conducted by blinded review by 4 investigators (JM, RAM, AY, RH). Intent-to-treat analysis was conducted for efficacy endpoints (HU n=39; PEG n=36). Safety analysis included all patients who received treatment (HU n=36; PEG n=36). Results: Patients: The MPD-RC 112 trial involved 24 centers in 6 countries; enrollment began 09/2011 and concluded 7/2016 prior to full accrual due to study drug availability with 168 patients enrolled (Table 1 for 75 patients in the interim analysis). There was no imbalance between arms with respect to history of thrombosis, erythromelalgia, diabetes, hypertension, but age was significantly older on HU. This remained true when analyzing by ET/PV disease strata with the exception of diabetes which was slightly imbalanced within the PV cohort (HU 5/23, 22%; PEG 0/21, 0%; p<0.05). Response: CHR and PHR were observed in 13 (33%) and 14 (36%) patients for an overall response rate (ORR) of 69% (27/39) for HU, and 10 (28%) and 19 (53%) for an ORR of 81% (29/36) for PEG (CHR comparison p=0.60 based on z-test which did not cross either testing boundary). 10 patients randomized to HU were not evaluable for 12-month response due to never initiating treatment (n=3) or early study discontinuation for AEs (n=1), patient withdrawal (n=5), or treatment non-compliance (n=1). 3 patients were not evaluable for response on PEG due to early study discontinuation for AEs (n=1), physician decision (n=1), or patient withdrawal (n=1). Excluding patients who never initiated treatment did not impact the primary endpoint comparison (HU 13/36, 36%; PEG 10/36, 28%; p=0.45). For ET, CHR and PHR were observed in 7 (44%) and 4 (25%) patient on HU, and 6 (40%) and 6 (40%) for PEG (CHR comparison p=0.83). For PV, CHR and PHR were observed in 6 (26%) and 10 (44%) patients on HU, and 4 (19%) and 13 (62%) for PEG (CHR comparison p=0.58). Normalization of spleen by palpation at 12 months was seen in 2/7 (29%) and 5/7 (71%) of the HU and PEG treated patients with palpable spleen at baseline, respectively. Among 38 PV patients, rate of phlebotomy use at 12 months was 0/18 (0%) vs 5/20 (20%) on HU and PEG (p=0.02). From baseline to best score through 12 months, 9/28 (32%) and 12/34 (35%) patients with data on HU and PEG, respectively, had a ≥50% reduction in MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (p=0.79). Toxicity: No Grade 4 AEs occurred in either treatment arm. Overall, Grade 3 AEs occurred in 5/36 (14%) HU patients and 16/36 (44%) PEG patients (Grade 3 hematologic: 4/36 [11%] HU vs 8/36 [22%] PEG; Grade 3 non-hematologic: 5/36 [14%] HU vs 16/36 [44%] PEG). See Table 2 for Grade 3 AEs regardless of attribution occurring in >10% of patients in either arm. Conclusions: This interim analysis does not show a clear difference in primary endpoint of CHR between HU and PEG. A comparative analysis of the quality of life and symptom burden will provide further insight into the tolerability of these agents (Mesa et al ASH 2016). The final results of this pivotal trial will provide necessary data required to firmly establish the optimal first line therapy for patients with high risk ET/PV. Disclosures Mascarenhas: CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: DSMB , Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Clinical Trial Steereing Committee, Research Funding. Mesa:Celgene: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Yacoub:Alexion: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Harrison:Baxaltra: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: 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. Vannucchi:Novartis: 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:Incyte: Honoraria. Ritchie:Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. Schlenk:Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: CMML is a heterogeneous malignancy characterized by peripheral monocytosis and a propensity for AML transformation. Given the low incidence of CMML and its broad range complexity, a large disease-specific data set is necessary to discern independent co-variates predictive of disease behavior. Several prognostic models derived from smaller data sets have been developed to stratify CMML patients into distinct groups that are predictive for OS. However, the validity of these models in a large international data set has never been investigated. Here, we present the largest International CMML data base established to date and report key baseline characteristics predictive for disease outcome. We externally validate and perform a detailed statistical comparison between the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS), Revised (R)-IPSS, Global MD Anderson Scoring System (MDASC), MD Anderson Prognostic Score (MDAPS), Dusseldorf Score (DS), Mayo, and Spanish Scoring Systems (CPSS). Methods: Data were abstracted by each contributing institution and deposited for central data review at the Moffitt Cancer Center. Manual review of cases was performed to ensure data quality prior to analysis. Only WHO defined CMML was included. The primary objective of this study was to establish an international CMML data set and validate the above models calculated at the time of presentation to each center. All prognostic models were calculated as previously described. The Kaplan–Meier (KM) method was used to estimate median OS and the log rank test was used to compare KM survival estimates with SPSS version 21.0. Random Forest Survival (RSF) and ROC analysis was done with R. Results: Between July 1981 and June 2014, 1832 CMML patients were captured in the International CMML database. Median age at diagnosis was 70 (16-93) years with a male (67%) predominance. By the WHO classification, the majority of patients had CMML-1 (79.9% vs. 20.1%) and most patients were evenly subcategorized as MPN-CMML (49.8%) versus MDS-CMML (50.2%) by FAB criteria. Splenomegaly was demonstrable in 25%. Most patients had favorable cytogenetics by both IPSS (70%) and CPSS (67.6%) classification schemas. Mean BM blast % was 5.6 and mean monocyte count was 4.85x103/dL. Median OS of the entire data set was 31.6 months. All tested prognostic models were valid and able to predict OS (p<0.0001). To compare relative model performance, 1013 complete cases with sufficient data to calculate all risk models were compared using time dependent receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves and their area under the curves (AUC). ROC curves were calculated for OS at 36 months. The R-IPSS model had the highest AUC (0.694) while the DS model had the lowest (0.635). The difference in AUC between the R-IPSS and DS models was statistically significant (p = 0.003) whereas there was no significant difference from other models tested. To determine which models were most vulnerable to reclassification from low-risk to higher risk, we calculated a vulnerability score defined by the number of models able to up-stage low-risk disease in more than 15% of cases. Using this metric, the Mayo and MDASC scores were least vulnerable to up-staging by other models. Lastly, we used an orthogonal method for determination of variable importance (RSF for OS at 36 months). RSF is an ensemble method of classification and regression tree methodology. Ranking of variables by their weighted importance determined by this procedure identified the top five variables were hemoglobin, circulating blasts, platelet count, number of cytopenias, and karyotype. A new risk model was developed using the results of the RSF with an AUC of 0.720, which was comparable but not significantly different than other modern scoring systems. Conclusions: This represents the largest international CMML-specific data set derived from eight unique centers of excellence. All modern prognostic models were valid and performed comparably. Despite novel strategies for variable importance discovery, an improved model could not be constructed. This data suggest that the power of clinical variables has reached an asymptote and highlights the need for incorporation of molecular and other novel biological features. This data set is currently being populated with molecular data and is being leveraged to test published CMML molecular prognostic models which will be disclosed at the time of presentation. Disclosures Garcia-Manero: Epizyme, Inc: Research Funding. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssenm, Novartis: Research Funding. Kantarjian:ARIAD, Pfizer, Amgen: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen Corp: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer-Ingelheim Corp: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background We have previously reported on the high prevalence and severity of insomnia amongst a large international cohort of MPN patients (Emanuel JCO 2012). We sought to further analyze the relationships between insomnia and the MPN disease features (in particular splenomegaly, status of blood counts), individual MPN symptom prevalence and severity, language, and overall quality of life. Methods Data was collected among an international cohort of patients with MPNs. Subjects completed the BFI, MPN-SAF, and EORTC QLQ-C30 instruments. Surveyed symptoms on the MPN-SAF included the patient’s perceptions of common MPN-related symptoms and overall quality of life (QOL) on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale. Specifically, the MPN-SAF insomnia item asked about “difficulty sleeping”. Total symptom score (TSS) was computed based on 10 symptom items using the published scoring algorithm on a 0 (all reported symptoms absent) to 100 (all reported symptoms worst imaginable) scale. Pairwise associations between the MPN-SAF insomnia item and continuous and categorical covariates were investigated using Pearson correlations and analysis of variance/t-tests, respectively. Multivariate regression models were used to investigate impact of groups of covariates on the insomnia item with the final multivariate model selected using forward regression. Results Demographics A total of 1992 MPN patients (essential thrombocythemia=834, polycythemia vera=703, myelofibrosis=449, unknown=6) completed the insomnia item. Participants were of typical age (median=61, range-15-94) and gender (female=54%). Overall, 1307 subjects endorsed the MPN insomnia item (score >0) with an overall mean symptom score of 3.0 (median=2.0, SD=3.1. range=0-10); 603/1992 (30%) of patients had severe insomnia related complaints (score >4). Univariate Analysis Among QLQ-C30 functioning scales, emotional functioning most highly correlated with the MPN-SAF insomnia item (r=-.47, p<0.001) with all other domains also having statistically significant but slightly weaker correlation (all p<0.001). Among QLQ-C30 symptom scales, insomnia (r=.79, p<0.001) and fatigue (r=.45, p<0.001) most highly correlated with the MPN-SAF insomnia item with all other QLQ-C30 symptoms having correlations between .13 and .37 (all p<.001). Among MPN-SAF items, the MPN-SAF insomnia item correlated with all MPN-SAF items (all p<0.001) including the TSS (r=0.55, p<0.001) and most highly with depression (r=.52, p<0.001), concentration problems (r=.43, p<0.001), overall QOL (r=.41, p<0.001), night sweats (r=.41, p<0.001), and extremity tingling (r=.40, p<0.001). MPN-SAF insomnia significantly differed by gender (means: M 2.4, F 3.4; p<0.001), language (means ranged from 2.6 [Italian] to 3.6 [German]; p=0.01), anemia (means: absent 2.8, present 3.5; p<0.001), prior hemorrhage (means: no 2.9, yes 3.7; p=0.01), and requiring red blood cell transfusion (means: no 2.9, yes 3.6; p=0.03), with a trend for a difference by MPN type (ET mean=2.7, PV mean=3.0, MF mean=3.2; p=0.06). Multivariate Analysis In a multivariate model of MPN-SAF insomnia containing all QLQ-C30 functioning scales, physical, emotional, and cognitive functioning along with global health status/QOL were all significant (all p<0.001). Numerous symptoms were also significant in a multivariate model of MPN-SAF insomnia containing all other MPN-SAF symptoms (all p<0.05: headaches, extremity tingling, depression, sexual problems, night sweats, pruritus, fever, and QOL). The final multivariate model based on forward regression starting with all demographics, clinical variables, and patient-reported QLQ-C30 scales and MPN-SAF items found age, gender, QLQ-C30 emotional functioning and MPN-SAF items to be significant. Conclusions Insomnia is highly prevalent and severe in MPN patients and closely correlates with most other MPN-related symptoms and functional domains bearing a multi-faceted impact on overall quality of life. Correlations between insomnia and emotional, cognitive, and physical complaints including depression/sad mood, concentration problems, night sweats, and numbness/tingling in the extremities suggest that the cause of MPN-related sleep complaints is likely complex. Future studies should evaluate the impact of interventions on MPN associated insomnia as well as its biological underpinnings. Disclosures: Etienne: novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roy:Novartis, BMS: Honoraria. Harrison:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; YM Bioscience: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Shire: Speakers Bureau; S Bio: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Birgegard:Vifor Pharma: Honoraria.

Abstract Background: Polycythemia vera (PV) is characterized by erythrocytosis, thrombocytosis, and/or leukocytosis and a broad range of disease-related symptoms. In high-risk patients, the most common first-line treatment is hydroxyurea (HU). The open-label RESPONSE trial demonstrated that ruxolitinib (RUX), a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, provided superior efficacy compared with best available therapy in patients with PV who were resistant to or intolerant of HU according to modified European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria. This study (RELIEF) was conducted in patients receiving a stable dose of HU and who were generally well controlled but reporting disease-associated symptoms, comparing the change in PV-related symptom burden in patients continuing their HU therapy with those switching to RUX treatment. Methods: RELIEF was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3b study of patients with PV aged ≥18 years on a stable dose of HU monotherapy and reporting PV-related symptoms. Patients were required to be receiving HU for ≥12 weeks prior to enrollment and on the same dose level for the last 4 weeks, and have a score ≥8 on the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) cytokine total symptom score (TSS-C). The TSS-C comprised symptoms of itching, tiredness, muscle ache, night sweats, and sweats while awake; each symptom was rated on a scale of 0=absent to 10=worst imaginable, with a maximum TSS-C score of 50. Patients also had to meet one of the following: ≤1 phlebotomy in the previous 6 months or no palpable splenomegaly. Those eligible were randomized 1:1 to receive RUX 10 mg BID and HU-placebo, or HU at the same dose/schedule and RUX-placebo. Dose adjustments were permitted for safety and efficacy. After Week 16, patients could receive open-label RUX until Week 48. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in TSS-C at Week 16; secondary endpoints included proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in individual TSS-C symptoms and safety. Results: Overall, 54 and 56 patients were randomized to RUX and HU, respectively; 87.0% and 89.3% remained on treatment through Week 16. At baseline, the median age (range) was 64 (36-87) in the RUX group and 66 (19-85) in the HU group; 44% and 61% were men. The majority of patients in the RUX and HU groups did not have baseline platelet counts or WBC above ELN thresholds: platelets >400 and ≤600 x 109/L (RUX 31.5%, HU 28.6%), >600 x 109/L (3.7%, 8.9%); WBC >10 and ≤15 x 109/L (16.7%, 16.1%), >15 x 109/L (11.1%, 14.3%). In the RUX and HU groups, the mean TSS-C at screening (22.4, 23.1) was higher than that at baseline (16.7, 18.0); the ratio of screening to baseline TSS-C was 1.7 and 1.6. The proportion of patients achieving a ≥50% reduction from baseline in TSS-C at Week 16 (primary endpoint) was 43.4% in the RUX group and 29.6% in the HU group (P=0.139; OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.82-4.04). The proportions of patients in the RUX vs HU groups achieving a ≥50% reduction in scores for itching and tiredness at Week 16 were 40.0% vs 26.4% and 54.2% vs 32.0%, respectively. Median percentage changes in individual TSS-C symptoms are shown in Table 1. Additional analyses found no correlation between individual changes in HU dose from baseline to Weeks 13-16 and percentage change in TSS-C in the HU arm (r2=0.030). Even patients maintaining the same HU dose from prior to study entry through Week 16 reported symptom improvement: 12/35 (34.3%) with no dose change, 4/12 (33.3%) with a dose increase, and 0/9 (0%) with a dose decrease had a ≥50% reduction in TSS-C. The most common nonhematologic adverse events in the RUX arm on randomized treatment were fatigue (20.4% RUX vs 10.7% HU), headache (16.7% vs 5.4%), and dizziness (13.0% vs 8.9%). The most common adverse events on HU were diarrhea (9.3% RUX vs 19.6% HU) and constipation (7.4% vs 12.5%); most events were grade 1 or 2. Grade 3 or 4 anemia or thrombocytopenia (lab values) were not reported in the RUX group; two patients in the RUX group had grade 3 or 4 neutropenia. Conclusion: In generally well controlled PV patients receiving a stable dose of HU, there was a positive trend in symptom improvement for patients switched to RUX therapy versus those continuing on HU therapy, although this was not statistically significant. The 34% response rate among patients who continued to receive a stable HU dose suggests a placebo effect that led to an underpowered study. Further analyses are required to better interpret these findings. Disclosures Off Label Use: Ruxolitinib is a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with intermediate or high-risk myelofibrosis, including primary myelofibrosis, post polycythemia vera myelofibrosis, and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Yacoub:Alexion Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Koschmieder:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Byrne:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Hunter:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jones:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. He:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Morozov:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Background We have previously reported on the significant, but heterogeneous baseline MPN symptom burden among an international sample of MPN patients (including essential thrombocythemia (ET), polycythemia vera (PV), and myelofibrosis (MF)) utilizing the MPN Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) and the derivative Total Symptom Score (MPN-SAF TSS). Recent clinical trials have sought to determine optimal MPN symptom response criteria, such as absolute 10 point improvement in MPN SAF TSS for ET/PV (ELN Criteria, Barosi et. al. Blood 2013) and 50% reduction in MPN-SAF TSS for MF (IWG-MRT, Tefferi et. al. Blood 2013). We sought to determine the role of improvement in MPN-SAF TSS quartiles as potential thresholds to assess symptomatic response to therapy. Methods Utilizing prospectively gathered MPN-SAF TSS (Emanuel et. al. JCO 2012) in patients we assessed potential thresholds of response by evaluating quartile thresholds for severity of symptom burden. The MPN-SAF TSS was scored as the average of 10 symptoms (individual symptoms scores of 0-10, with a total score of 0 (best) to 100 (worst)). MPN-SAF TSS quartiles were identified by the percentage of scores between 0-24% (quartile 1 (Q1)), 25-49% (quartile 2 (Q2)), 50-74% (quartile 3 (Q3)), 75-100% (quartile 4 (Q4)). Results MPN-SAF TSS Quartiles: MPN-SAF TSS quartiles were identified among 1858 MPN patients (ET N=775, PV N=654, and MF N=423). Overall MPN-SAF TSS scores of 0 - 7 were designated as Q1, 8 - 17 as Q2, 18 - 31 as Q3, and ≥ 32 was as Q4. MPN-SAF TSS scores were significantly different between clusters (p<0.001). Associations Between Quartiles and Demographic/ Disease Factors: As quartiles increased, the proportion of PV and ET patients diminished and MF increased (Table 1, p<0.001). Cytopenias and transfusion dependence increased in prevalence in the higher quartiles (p<0.001). A history of prior thrombosis was also significantly more prevalent in the quartiles with highest symptom burden (p<0.001). The prevalence of women was significantly higher among the more symptomatic quartiles females 48.9% Q1, 49.4% Q2, 58.4% Q3, and 60.1% Q4; p<0.001). Associations Between Individual Symptoms and MPN-SAF TSS Quartiles: All individual symptoms measured in the MPN-SAF TSS were significantly worse in quartiles as they increased (p<0.0001). Evaluation of Prognostic Scoring and MPN-SAF TSS Quartiles: Comparison of each patients individual risk score (IPSET, PV, DIPSS for MF) and worsening symptom quartile showed the highest correlation with MF patients (DIPSS) (Table 1). However, ET and PV risk scores were not surrogates for symptom burden by quartile. Conclusions Distribution of MPN patient symptomatic burden by MPN-SAF TSS quartiles provides an easy-to-calculate method to cluster and analyze MPN patients of similar burden. Although MF patients are most prevalent in the most severe quartile of MPN symptomatology it is notable that Q4 has many patients with PV and ET. Future prospective efforts are ongoing to assess the potential of using changes in quartile (i.e. improving from Q3 to Q1) as potential symptomatic response thresholds. Disclosures: Etienne: novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roy:Novartis, BMS: Honoraria. Harrison:Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; S Bio: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; YM Bioscience: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Birgegard:Vifor Pharma: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction Fedratinib (SAR302503), a JAK2-selective inhibitor, has demonstrated clinical improvements in splenomegaly and constitutional symptoms in patients with MF in Phase I/II trials (J Clin Oncol 2011;29:789. Haematologica 2013;98:S1113). The aim of this primary analysis was to determine the effect of fedratinib on key MF symptom burden and global assessment of HRQoL in the JAKARTA trial (NCT01437787). Methods JAKARTA is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, 3-arm, Phase III study, in which patients ≥18 years of age with intermediate- or high-risk MF, platelet count ≥50 × 109/L, and splenomegaly were randomized (1:1:1) to receive placebo or fedratinib at a dose of 400 or 500 mg, orally, once daily, in consecutive 4-week cycles. Total symptom score (TSS), a key efficacy end point (TSS: averaged daily total score of 6 item measures over 1 week: night sweats, pruritus, abdominal discomfort, early satiety, pain under ribs on left side, and bone or muscle pain), was assessed through a daily electronic eDiary using the modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF; Cancer 2011;117:4869. Blood 2011;118:401), with symptom response defined as a ≥50% reduction in TSS at the end of Cycle 6 (EOC6). HRQoL was assessed using the EuroQOL (EQ)-5D instrument that was completed at baseline and EOC6. Patient performance was assessed using the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Scale (ECOG PS). Spleen volume was measured by MRI or CT at baseline and EOC6. Results In JAKARTA, a total of 289 patients were randomized: median age 65 years; 59% male; 63% primary MF; 48% high-risk MF; 67% JAK2V617F positive; 16% platelet count <100 × 109/L. The symptom evaluable population comprised 261 patients (placebo [n=82]; 400 mg [n=89]; 500 mg [n=90]). The mean (SD) baseline TSS was 14.6 (11.9), 17.6, (13.5), and 16.9 (11.9) in the placebo, 400 mg, and 500 mg groups, respectively. At Week 24 (EOC6), the proportion of patients with a symptom response was significantly higher (p<0.0001) in the 400 and 500 mg groups versus placebo (Table). Symptom responses with fedratinib were also higher than placebo in the subgroup of patients with baseline platelets <100 × 109/L (Table). For individual symptoms, the greatest improvements were seen for night sweats and early satiety (Table). Baseline HRQoL (EQ-5D, mean [SD]) was similar in the three groups (placebo: 62.5 [21.2]; 400 mg: 61.3 [22.2]; 500 mg: 60.1 [20.1]). Fedratinib treatment led to improvements in HRQoL from baseline to Week 24, whereas placebo treatment led to slight worsening of HRQoL (Table). At Week 24, the degree of improvement in TSS was greatest in patients with ≥35% reduction in spleen volume from baseline (Figure). Mean TSS improvement was correlated with improvement in HRQoL (TSS reductions were greater in EQ-5D improvers versus non-improvers), and ECOG PS (TSS reductions were greater in patients with ECOG PS 1 or 2 score improvement versus those with ECOG PS worsening). Conclusions Fedratinib treatment over 24 weeks led to significant improvements in MF symptoms versus placebo. Patients treated with fedratinib also experienced substantial improvements in HRQoL versus placebo. Symptom improvements were associated with spleen responses. This study was sponsored by Sanofi. Disclosures: Mesa: Incyte, Genentech, Lilly, MS Pharma, Gilead: Research Funding. Cortes:Incyte, Sanofi: Consultancy; Incyte, Sanofi: Research Funding. Cervantes:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Novartis and Sanofi: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jourdan:Sanofi: Honoraria. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Drummond:TargeGen, Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi, Novartis, Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi, Novartis, Celgene: Consultancy. Passamonti:Novartis, Celgene, Incyte, Sanofi, Roche: Honoraria. Neumann:Sanofi: Employment. Joulain:Sanofi: Employment. Iqbal:Sanofi: Employment. Harrison:Novartis: Research Funding; Novartis, Sanofi, YM Bioscience, Celgene, SBio, Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis, Sanofi, Shire: Speakers Bureau; Novartis, Sanofi, YM Bioscience, SBio, Gilead: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.