Citations

Abstract Background: Most experts agree that iron chelation therapy is unlikely to benefit myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients with a bone marrow (BM) blast percentage of ≥ 5% because of the associated short life expectancy. In contrast, using a serum ferritin of 1,000 ng/mL as a surrogate for iron overload, a recent study suggested a negative impact of iron overload on overall survival in MDS patients with < 5% BM blasts including those with refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts (RARS) (Malcovati et al. JCO2005:23:7594). In the current retrospective study, we examined the validity of this observation in a large group of RARS patients seen at a single institution. Methods: The diagnosis of RARS was based on the French-American-British cooperative group criteria. Serum ferritin levels obtained both at diagnosis and during follow-up as well as total number of packed red blood cells transfused were recorded. Standard statistical methods were used for survival and other analyses. Results: A total of 126 RARS patients (median age 73 years, range 44-90; 67% males) were seen at our institution over the last several years. At diagnosis, median (range) values were 9.4 g/dL (5.7-13.4) for hemoglobin (Hgb), 2.8 × 109/L (0.3-13.7) for absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and 214× 109/L (22-819) for platelet count; 38% of the patients had received red blood cell (RBC) transfusions at the time of initial diagnosis. International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) risk distributions in evaluable patients were 66% for low, 28% for intermediate-1 and 6% for intermediate-2 risk. Median follow-up was 36 months and during this time 83 patients (66%) had died and leukemic transformation was documented antemortem in 8 patients (6%). As expected, IPSS was highly predictive of survival outcome (p<0.0001). In addition, history of RBC transfusions at diagnosis (p=0.001) but not the total number of RBC transfusions received during the entire disease course (p=0.17) carried an independent prognostic value for inferior survival. There were no significant correlations between overall survival and serum ferritin level at either diagnosis (median 567 ng/mL, range 16-3,475; p=0.24) or the maximum value during follow-up (median 1,108 ng/mL; range 238-43,500; p=0.72). Similarly, Kaplan-Meier plots of 77 evaluable patients stratified by serum ferritin levels of < or ≥1000 ng/mL at diagnosis or 107 evaluable patients stratified by maximal serum ferritin levels of < 1000, 1000-5000, or > 5000 ng/mL during follow-up revealed similar curves (Figure). Conclusions: The current study suggests no significant association between transfusional hemosiderosis and survival even in good risk patients with MDS. The study also undermines the utility of serum ferritin as a surrogate for assessing the value of therapeutic iron chelation. Figure Figure Figure Figure

BACKGROUND: Chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) has been the standard therapy for younger patients with CLL. FCR therapy is particularly effective in patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV) mutated CLL. Approximately half of IGHV mutated patients are progression free 8 years after FCR therapy. At the ASH 2018 meeting, we reported the initial results of the ECOG 1912 (E1912) trial, a phase 3 trial comparing the FCR regimen to the combination of ibrutinib and rituximab (IR) for previously untreated CLL patients age 70 or younger who required therapy. With median follow-up of approximately 34 months, the trial demonstrated both a progression-free survival (PFS) and an overall survival (OS) benefit relative to FCR. On sub-set analysis by IGHV mutation status, the difference in PFS was statistically significant for IGHV unmutated patients but, with current follow-up, not IGHV mutated patients. Here, we present updated results for PFS in the E1912 trial. METHODS: As previously reported, eligible patients were treatment-naive individuals with CLL age 70 or younger. Patients with deletion 17p- were excluded from participating in the E1912 trial given their known poor response to FCR therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a two-to-one ratio to receive ibrutinib (420 mg/day until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 2, 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 2, and then 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 3-7) or six courses of intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m2 days 1-3), cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2 days 1-3) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1, 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 1, and then 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 2-6) every 28-days. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (version 4). Dose adjustments for cytopenias were based on the IWCLL CLL Working Group grading scale. The primary endpoint of the trial was PFS with OS a secondary endpoint. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 45 months, 257 (73%) of 354 patients randomized to IR remain on ibrutinib. With extended follow-up, grade 3 and above treatment-related AEs were observed in 70% of IR and 80% of FCR treated patients (OR=0.56; 95% CI 0.34 - 0.90; p=0.013). Among IR-treated patients, the median time on treatment is currently 43 months (range=0.2-61). Among the 95 patients who have discontinued ibrutinib, the reason for discontinuation was progression or death in 23 (7% of patients who started IR; 24% of those who discontinued treatment), AE or complication in 48 (14% of patients who started IR; 51% of those who discontinued treatment), and withdrawal of consent or other reasons in 24 (7% of patients who started IR; 25% of those who discontinued treatment). On multivariable Cox regression adjusting for Timed Up and Go test score, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score, age, gender, ECOG performance status, creatinine clearance, and baseline anemia/thrombocytopenia, only CIRS score (range 0 - 14) predicted discontinuation of ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death (HR=1.13 per unit increase; 95% CI 1.03 - 1.23; p=0.009). Among the 72 patients who discontinued ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death, the median time on ibrutinib was 15.1 months (range 0.2-58.2 months). The median time from ibrutinib discontinuation to disease progression or death was 23 months. With current follow-up, we observed 110 PFS events. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS favored IR over FCR (HR=0.39; 95% CI 0.26-0.57; p<0.0001). Updated analysis of OS will be presented. On sub-group analysis by IGHV mutation status, IR was superior to FCR for IGHV unmutated patients (HR=0.28; 95% CI 0.17-0.48; p<0.0001). With current follow-up the difference is not significant in IGHV mutated patients (HR=0.42; 95% CI 0.16-1.16; p=0.086). Kaplan-Meier estimates for PFS are shown in Figure 1. CONCLUSIONS: Although less than 7% of ibrutinib treated patients progressed while on therapy, roughly 1 in 5 patients have discontinued ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death. The only parameter significantly associated with discontinuation for a reason other than progression was increased baseline CIRS score. With extended follow-up, the combination of ibrutinib and rituximab continues to provide superior PFS compared to FCR for younger patients with previously untreated CLL. Disclosures Shanafelt: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Patent: Patents & Royalties: US14/292,075 on green tea extract epigallocatechin gallate in combination with chemotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia; Polyphenon E International: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Glaxo-SmithKline: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB. O'Brien:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences, Inc: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vaniam Group LLC: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding. Barrientos:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sandoz: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding. Coutre:Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses & Data Safety Monitoring Committee; Genentech: Consultancy. Barr:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cashen:Celgene: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Novartis: Other: Speaker's Bureau. Mato:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB member , Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Erba:Amgen: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stone:Arog Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka-Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Fujifilm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celator Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ono Pharmaceutical-Theradex Oncology: Consultancy; Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board ; Orsenix: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Fees for serving on a steering committee, and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Other: Fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board ; Roche: Consultancy. Tallman:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Initial therapy for MCL is effective, but most patients eventually relapse. Validated intermediate biomarkers for MCL are important to provide early assessment of treatment efficacy, prognostic information and potentially guide consolidation. The US-Canadian Intergroup trial E1411 randomly assigned patients (pts) to receive induction with BR ± bortezomib (V), followed by consolidation with R ± L. As a planned correlative, MRD was assessed after cycle 3 (I3), end of induction (EOI) and after 4 cycles of consolidation (C4) by two methods: a research version of clonoSEQ® a next generation sequencing (NGS) MRD assay, (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) that leverages multiplex PCR followed by NGS to identify and track rearrangements of IgH, V-J, D-J and IgK/L loci as well as translocations in Bcl1/2-IgH, and flow cytometry (FC) (I3 and EOI only) at a central laboratory (Mayo Clinic). While outcomes by treatment arm remain blinded, we report here the results of the MRD assessments by each method and the associated progression free survival (PFS). In E1411, 373 pts, accrued between May 2012 - Sept. 2016, were randomly assigned (stratified by MIPI and age (</≥60)) to receive BR induction x 6 followed by R for 2 years, BVR followed by R, BR followed by LR or BVR followed by LR. Eligible pts were ≥ age 18 and had untreated MCL, ECOG PS 0-2, and adequate hematologic and organ function. Of the 373 pts, 296 (79%) consented to correlatives. Of these, 255 (86%) had baseline NGS samples, and 214 were analyzable. Excluded were 6 patients that were protocol ineligible, 20 without clinical follow-up; only 7 (2.7%) patients were ineligible due to inability to identify a dominant clone necessary to follow MRD by the NGS method. At baseline pre-treatment, NGS detected a dominant clone in bone marrow (BM) or peripheral blood (PB) in 92%, with only 17 (8%) requiring study of biopsy tissue. Of the 296, 240 had baseline FC data, 9 were protocol exclusions, leaving 231 analyzable. FC detected a non-MCL monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis clone in a small number of cases. While NGS may have higher sensitivity, as FC sensitivity is 10-4, for this analysis we used that cutoff for both NGS and FC. Cohen's Kappa statistic compares concordance between MRD pairs, and p-value is from exact McNemar's test. BR-based initial MCL therapy achieved early MRD negativity (< 10-4) in a high proportion of patients. Analyzing PB at mid-induction (I3): by NGS 89% MRD-, 9% MRD+ and 2% indeterminate, whereas by FC 87% MRD-, 12% MRD+ and 1% indeterminate. Concordance was high with 127 MRD- by both methods, 13 MRD+ by both, and 6 NGS-/FC+ (Kappa Statistic = 0.79, p-value = 0.031). By NGS, of 12 pts MRD+ at I3, 7 became MRD- at EOI, and 4 remained MRD+ (1 indeterminate). Analyzing at EOI: MRD- rates were 91% by NGS analysis of PB (147/161) and 90% in BM (96/107), vs 95% (174/183) by FC in PB. As some were indeterminate, only 7% were MRD+ by NGS in BM, 3% by NGS in PB and 5% by FC. In 88 informative samples with EOI NGS in both BM and PB, concordance was high, with 81 negative in both, 1 positive in both and 6 BM+/PB- (Kappa Statistic = 0.23, p-value = 0.031). Of 101 pts with data at all 3 timepoints, I3, EOI, and C4: 7 were MRD+ at I3, 5 of these were MRD- at EOI, but 2 of these 5 were again MRD+ at C4. Of 2 MRD+ EOI, 1 became MRD- at C4. By FC, of 17 patients MRD+ at I3, 11 (65%) became MRD- at EOI. MRD status correlated with progression-free survival (PFS). Due to the low MRD+ rate at EOI and C4, we focus here on MRD status at I3 (10-4 cutoff for both NGS and FC), using a landmark analysis of 4 months on study. Median PFS (Figure) for pts MRD- at I3 mid-induction was 58.9 months by either NGS or FC, while for those MRD+ by NGS it was 26.9 months, vs 29.9 months MRD+ by FC. Conclusions: Both NGS and FC were feasible to assess MRD status in this multi-center trial. Results of NGS and FC are concordant at the 10-4 cutoff. NGS can be more sensitive when adequate material is available, and analysis of this subgroup is ongoing. The high MRD- rate (≥ 90%) at EOI in this BR-based trial and MRD correlation with PFS supports its use as a platform for MCL trials, although consolidation may confound PFS. Early interim MRD testing at cycle 3 identifies a high-risk population who may benefit from alternative treatment strategies. Analysis by treatment arm with longer follow-up, as well as comparison with centrally reviewed PET/CTs included in this study, will help define the most informative method(s), cutoff values, and timing for assessing degree of response in MCL. Figure. Disclosures Smith: Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Parekh:Foundation Medicine Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Karyopharm Inc.: Research Funding. Martin:Sandoz: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy. Till:Mustang Bio: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Leonard:Gilead: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. Kahl:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy.

Summary Survival prediction in essential thrombocythaemia (ET) and polycythaemia vera (PV) is currently based on clinically‐derived variables; we examined the possibility of integrating genetic information for predicting survival. To this end, 906 molecularly‐annotated patients (416 Mayo Clinic; 490 University of Florence, Italy), including 502 ET and 404 PV, were recruited. Multivariable analysis identified spliceosome mutations to adversely affect overall ( SF3B1 , SRSF2 in ET and SRSF2 in PV) and myelofibrosis‐free ( U2AF1 , SF3B1 in ET) survival; TP53 mutations predicted leukaemic transformation in ET; “adverse” mutations occurred in 51 (10%) ET and 8 (2%) PV patients. We confirmed the independent survival effect of adverse mutations [hazard ratio (HR) 2·4, 95% CI 1·6–3·5], age >60 years (6·6, 4·6–9·7), male sex (1·8, 1·3–2·4) and leukocytosis ≥11 × 10 9 /l (1·6, 1·1–2·2), in ET, and adverse mutations (7·8, 3·1–17·0), age >67 years (5·4, 3·6–8·1), leukocytosis ≥15 × 10 9 /l (2·8, 1·8–4·2) and thrombosis history (2·0, 1·4–2·9), in PV. HR‐based risk point allocation allowed development of three‐tiered mutation‐enhanced international prognostic systems (MIPSS) which were validated in both cohorts and performance was shown to be superior to conventional scoring systems. Spliceosome mutations enhance survival prediction in ET and PV and identify patients at risk for fibrotic progression. TP53 mutations predict leukaemic transformation in ET.

Abstract Background : Approximately 25% of patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF) harbor calreticulin (CALR) mutations, which have been associated with longer survival (Klampf et al. NEJM 2013). More than 80% of CALR mutated patients harbor one of two mutation variants: type 1, a 52-bp deletion (p.L367fs*46) or type 2, a 5-bp TTGTC insertion (p.K385fs*47). Recent studies have suggested phenotypic and prognostic differences between these two variants (Tefferi et al. Blood 2014, Leukemia 2014 and AJH 2014). Furthermore, data are emerging that suggest functionally-relevant structural differences between type 1 and type 2 CALR variants, including a higher alpha-helix content of the mutant C-terminus in type 2, compared to type 1 (Eder-Azanza et al. Leukemia 2014). Objectives : We used statistical models to calculate helix propensity for thirty-one unique amino acid sequences that were altered by CALR mutations and used the results to subclassify non-type 1/2 CALR mutations into “type 1-like” and “type 2-like” variants. Subsequently, we examined the prognostic relevance of these subgroups. Methods : Calculation of helix propensity, which is the percentage of residues that are predicted to be involved in the formation of an alpha-helix, was performed using AGADIR, which is a statistical approximation algorithm (Munoz et al. Biopolymers 1997). The helix tendency calculations were performed using conditions of pH 7.0, 5 and 25 °C, an ionic strength of 0.1 M and no N- or C-terminal protection. Results : 532 PMF patients were screened for JAK2, CALR and MPL mutations; the respective mutational frequencies were 58%, 24.6% and 7.3%. Among the 131 CALR-mutated cases, 98 (74.8%) harbored type 1, 15 (11.5%) type 2 and 18 (13.7%) other variants. Based on predicted helix propensity scale, the “other” CALR mutations were subclassified as type 1-like (n=12) or type 2-like (n=6) and respectively grouped with type 1 and type 2 variants, for purposes of phenotypic and prognostic comparisons. The AGADIR-derived predicted helix propensity scale was 29.69 for wild-type CALR and 8.6 or 34.17 for type 1 and type 2 mutant CALR, respectively; accordingly, CALR variants with values that are close to or above the value for wild-type CALR were classified as “type 2-like” (range 26.47-36.12) and those with values close to or below the value for type 1 as “type 1-like” (range 2.11-17.3). Comparison of “type 1/type 1-like” (n=110) and “type 2/type 2-like” (n=21) CALR mutations showed the latter to be associated with higher DIPSS-plus score (p=0.01), EZH2 mutations (p<0.01), leukocyte count >25 x 10(9)/L (p<0.01), higher circulating blast percentage (p=0.02) and palpable spleen size >10 cm (p<0.01). Comparison of “type 1/type 1-like” CALR and JAK2 mutations (n=309) showed the former to be associated with younger age, higher platelet count, lower transfusion need, higher hemoglobin level, lower leukocyte count and lower DIPSS-plus score (p<0.01 for all comparisons). None of these associations was evident during comparison of “type 2/type 2-like” CALR with JAK2 mutations. Survival was similar between patients with type 1 and “type 1-like” (p=0.8) and between type 2 and “type 2-like” (p=0.63) CALR mutations. In contrast, survival was significantly shorter in patients with type 2 (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.8) and “type 2-like” (HR 3.2, 95% CI 1.0-10.6), when compared to those with type 1 CALR mutations. Survival was also significantly shorter with “type 2/type 2-like” vs “type 1/type 1-like” CALR mutations (p=0.003; HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.4-4.5) and the difference remained significant when analysis was adjusted for age (p=0.047), ASXL1 (p=0.003) or EZH2 (p=0.001) mutations. Similarly, compared to JAK2-mutated cases (n=309), survival was longer in patients with “type 1/type 1-like” (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.5) but not in those with “type 2/type 2-like” (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.6) CALR mutations; the difference in survival between JAK2 and “type 1/type 1-like” CALR mutated cases remained significant (P<0.01) when analysis was adjusted for age, ASXL1 or EZH2 mutations or DIPSS-plus score. Conclusions : CALR mutations in PMF might be subclassified into type 1-like and type 2-like variants, based on predicted helical propensity of their mutant C-terminus. The favorable impact of CALR mutations in PMF might be restricted to type 1 or “type 1-like” variants. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background : Momelotinib is a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor that is currently being evaluated in phase-3 clinical trials for the treatment of myelofibrosis (MF) (NCT01969838, NCT02101268). In a phase-1/2 clinical trial of patients with MF, the drug was shown to improve anemia, reduce spleen size and alleviate symptoms (Leukemia 2013;27:1322). In the current study, we considered 100 consecutive patients from the Mayo Clinic who received momelotinib therapy, in order to identify molecular and cytogenetic predictors of treatment response and survival from the time of study entry. Methods : The study patients constituted part of a phase-1/2 clinical trial (NCT00935987) using momelotinib in MF. Details of the protocol, including inclusion and exclusion criteria were previously published (Leukemia 2013;27:1322). Response was determined by the 2006 response criteria published by the IWG-MRT. Data analysis and interpretation was carried out independent of any influence from the sponsor. Results : 100 patients with MF (median age 66 years; 58% males) were treated at the Mayo Clinic between 11/20/09 and 11/10/10. MF type was primary in 64% of the patients and post-polycythemia vera/essential thrombocythemia in 36%. DIPSS-plus risk distribution was 63% high, 36% intermediate-2 and 1% intermediate-1. Red cell transfusion dependency was documented in 49% and palpable spleen size of >5 cm (median 19 cm) in 92%. All patients were annotated for JAK2/CALR/MPL mutations with respective frequencies of 73%, 16% and 7%. Frequencies for other mutations included 42% for ASXL1 (84 evaluable) and 18% for SRSF2(78 evaluable). All patients were evaluable for karyotype, which was unfavorable in 17%. Previous treatment included other JAK inhibitors in 21 patients, thalidomide/lenalidomide/pomalidomide in 31 and hydroxyurea or other cytoreductive agents in 55. Momelotinib was initiated at 100 mg/day in 3 patients, 150 mg/day in 21, 150 mg twice-daily in 20, 200 mg/day in 3, 300 mg/day in 47 and 400 mg/day in 6. The maximum momelotinib dose was 150 mg/day in 6 patients, 150 mg twice-daily in 20, 300 mg/day in 68 and 400 mg/day in 6. Treatment duration was <6 months in 12 patients, 6-12 months in 22, 12-24 months in 19 and >24 months in 47. Genetic correlates of response to momelotinib : Overall response rate was 57% and included no complete remissions (0%), one (1%) partial remission and 57 (57%) clinical improvements (CI). Response rates for spleen/liver and anemia were 43% (91 evaluable) and 44% (68 evaluable), respectively. Transfusion independency was achieved in 25 (51%) of 49 evaluable cases. Spleen/liver response rate was significantly affected by JAK2/CALR/MPL mutational status (34% vs 73% vs 60%, respectively, and 50% in triple-negative; p=0.04), CALR mutated vs unmutated status (73% vs 37%; p=0.009), and unmutated vs mutated ASXL1 (53% vs 29%; p=0.035). Furthermore, all 8 (100%) patients who were CALR+/ASXL1- responded vs 6 (25%) of 24 CALR-/ASXL1+ vs 3 (50%) of 6 CALR+/ASXL1+ vs 16 (43%) of 37 CALR-/ASXL1- patients (p=0.003). Spleen/liver response rates were not affected by SRSF2 mutations (p=0.93) or karyotype (p=0.41). Anemia response rate was not affected by JAK2/CALR/MPL (p=0.81), ASXL1 (p=0.16), SRSF2 (p=0.12) or CALR/ASXL1 (p=0.42) mutational status or karyotype (p=0.65). The number of informative cases for EZH2, IDH, SF3B1 and U2AF1mutations were not adequate enough to warrant similar analysis. Genetic correlates of survival from time of protocol entry : Median follow-up after the institution of protocol drug therapy was 35 months (range 1-49). During this period, 57 (57%) deaths and 12 (12%) leukemic transformations were documented. On multivariable analysis, shortened survival was predicted by the presence of ASXL1 (p=0.01; HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.8) or SRSF2 (0.01; HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.8) mutations and the absence of CALR mutations (p=0.03; HR 3.2, 95% CI 1.1-8.9). Karyotype was significant on univariate (p=0.01) but not in multivariable (p=0.6) analysis that included the aforementioned mutations. The prognostic relevance of each specific mutation was DIPSS-plus independent. Conclusions : We demonstrate significant associations between CALR and ASXL1 mutational status and spleen response to momelotinib therapy in MF. We also show that momelotinib therapy did not overcome the inferior survival associated with the presence of ASXL1 or SRSF2 mutations or the absence of CALR mutations. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background : The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms has recommended distinction between "proliferative" (WBC ≥ 13 x 10(9)/L) and "dysplastic" (WBC < 13 X 10(9)/L) subtypes of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). In addition, CMML is characterized by a spectrum of cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities (Patnaik Leukemia 2014). In the current study, we looked for correlations between gene expression profiles (GEP) and morphologic or molecular categories of previously untreated patients with CMML. Methods : 35 patients with CMML were included in the study. Targeted capture assays were carried out on BM DNA specimens obtained at diagnosis for 28 myeloid-relevant genes (Patnaik Blood C. J.). RNA sequencing (Stranded Total RNA- Illumina, San Diego, CA), was performed on 9 normal BM controls, and 35 CMML samples (25 peripheral blood (PB) and 10 BM). The RNA-Seq data was analyzed using MAPRSeq v.2.0. Normalization and differential expression analysis was performed using edgeR 2.6.2. We selected genes that were differentially expressed with a False Discovery Rate (FDR) <0.1 and a fold change bigger than 2. Pathway enrichment analysis was performed using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA). Results: Among the 35 study patients, 75% were males and median age was 71 years (range, 55-87). 21 (60%), 9 (25%) and 5 (15%) patients were classified as CMML-0, 1 and 2, respectively. 16 (45%) had a dysplastic while 19 (55%) had a proliferative phenotype. At a median follow-up of 16 months, 5 (14%) deaths and 4 (14%) leukemic transformations were documented. Mutational frequencies included; TET2 45%, ASXL1 45%, SRSF2 40%, NRAS 14%, SETBP1 13%, CBL 10%, JAK2 7%, RUNX1 6%, DNMT3A 6%, U2AF1 6%, SF3B1 5%, ZRSR2 4%, Tp53 4%, and IDH2 4%. Abnormal cytogenetics (n=9, 35%) included; -Y 8%, trisomy 8 6%, monosomy 7 3%, del(13q) 3% and monosomal karyotype 3%. i) Differential GEP in PB samples: 25 PB CMML samples were analyzed. Unsupervised GEP demonstrated two unique clusters (figure one); cluster one was enriched with dysplastic CMML (90%) and cluster two with proliferative CMML (64%). Consistent with the difference in the distribution of morphologic categories, in comparison to cluster one, patients in cluster two had a higher white blood count (p=0.003), higher monocyte count (p=0.02) and higher risk prognostication by the Mayo Model (p=0.016); there was no significant difference between the two clusters in terms of age and gender distribution, hemoglobin level, neutrophil and platelet counts, PB or BM blast content, cytogenetic risk stratification, ASXL1, TET2, RAS, CBL and SETBP1 mutational status. Genes significantly upregulated (FDR<1e-5 and fold change ≥ 16x); in cluster two (proliferative CMML) in comparison to cluster one included; PRG2, CTSG, BEX1, CD34, CRISP2, while those significantly down-regulated included (FDR<1e-15 and fold change ≥ 5x); IL2RB, PRF1, GNLY, PDGFRB. IPA analysis identified the following pathways preferentially expressed in cluster two (proliferative CMML) 1) mitotic roles of polo-like kinase (KIF23, WEE-1, PLK1, PLK4), 2) Cell cycle: G2/M checkpoint regulation (CDC25C, WEE-1, AURKA, CDK1), 3) Cell cycle: chromosomal replication (CDC45, RPA3, MCM2, CDC7), and 4) BRCA1 in DNA damage response (BARD1, RBBP8, PLK1, RAD51). Whereas in the cluster one (dysplastic CMML), preferentially expressed pathways included; 1) T-cell receptor signalling (CD247 PRKCQ, CD4, PLCG1, CD28) and 2) STAT3 signalling (SOCS3, MAP3K9). ii) Differential GEP in BM samples: 10 BM CMML samples were analyzed along with 10 normal controls. Samples and controls clustered separately and within the CMML samples two clusters were identified (figure two). These clusters had equal representations of dysplastic (n=5) and proliferative (n=5) CMML sub-types. Additional samples are being processed. Conclusions: Differential gene expression profiling in patients with CMML identifies two unique clusters, clinically demarcated, at least in PB samples, by "proliferative" and "dysplastic" CMML subtypes. The proliferative cluster is enriched in genes involved in cell cycle regulation and DNA damage response; whereas the dysplastic cluster is enriched in T-cell receptor and STAT3 signalling. The prognostic and therapeutic impact of these gene clusters remains to be assessed in a larger group of informative patients. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Momelotinib is a JAK 1/2 inhibitor that is active in the treatment of myelofibrosis (MF); a previous phase 1/2 study included 100 consecutive patients from the Mayo Clinic (Leukemia. 2015;29:741). In the current long-term study of these 100 patients, we provide a cumulative account of short and long term efficacy and toxicity data, as well as survival analysis. Methods: The current study represents sponsor-independent analysis. The study patients are part of a larger (n=166) phase-1/2 momelotinib study (NCT00935987), which was conducted in two dose-escalation (100 mg-400 mg daily doses) and dose-confirmation (300 mg daily dose) phases. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (Version 4.03) and responses by the International Working Group criteria (Blood. 2013;122:1395). All statistical analyses considered clinical and laboratory parameters obtained at the time of entry to study. Results: Baseline data: 100 patients with MF (median age 66 years; 58% males) were treated between 11/20/09 and 11/10/10; 64 patients had primary MF, 22 post-polycythemia vera MF and 14 post-essential thrombocythemia MF. 73 (73%) patients harbored JAK2 mutations, 16 (16%) CALR, 7 MPL and 4 were "triple-negative"; among the 16 CALR-mutated cases, 13 were classified as "type 1/type 1-like". DIPSS-plus risk distribution (JCO 2011;29:392) was 63% high, 36% intermediate-2 and 1% intermediate-1; 49% displayed red cell transfusion-dependency, 58% constitutional symptoms, 87% palpable splenomegaly >5 cm and 50% abnormal karyotype. 94 patients were screened for ASXL1 mutations with 41 (44%) mutated and 78 for SRSF2 mutations with 14 (18%) mutated. 21 (21%) patients were previously treated with another JAK inhibitor. Current disposition: All information was updated in July 2016. To-date, after a median follow-up of 3.2 years, 88 drug discontinuations, 70 deaths and 14 leukemic transformations have been documented; median follow-up for living patients was 5.7 years (range 5.1-6.4). Among the 30 patients who are currently alive, 12 remain on study and another 5 have received stem cell transplant. Toxicity data: After a median treatment duration of 1.7 years, "momelotinib related" grade 3 or 4 AEs included thrombocytopenia (34%), neutropenia (9%), anemia (5%), increased lipase (7%), increased ALT (4%), increased AST (2%), increased ALP (2%) and headaches (2%). In addition, noteworthy grade 1 or 2 AEs included peripheral neuropathy (PN) 47%, increased lipase (14%), increased amylase (17%), increased bilirubin (13%), increased AST (21%), increased ALT (19%), increased APTT (17%), headaches (13%), dizziness (22%), nausea (23%) and diarrhea (20%). Most of the AEs, except PN, were reversible. Efficacy data and predictors of response and relapse-free survival: Clinical improvement (CI) was documented in 57% of patients, anemia response in 44%, and spleen response in 43%. 51% of transfusion-dependent patients became transfusion independent. The majority of patients also had marked improvement in their symptoms. 46 (81%) of the 57 responding patients discontinued treatment after a median treatment duration of 2.3 years. ASXL1 mutations predicted inferior CI (p=0.03) whereas relapse-free survival was adversely affected by absence of type 1/type 1-like CALR (p=0.03) or presence of unfavorable karyotype (p=0.002); among the 11 responding patients currently still receiving the drug, all had favorable karyotype and 5 had type 1/type 1-like CALR mutations. Survival analysis and risk factors : Median survival, calculated from the time of study entry, was 3.2 years with 5-year survival rate of 32%. In multivariable analysis of genetic markers, absence of type 1/type 1-like CALR (HR 2.9, 95% CI 1.1-7.2) or presence of SRSF2 (2.9, 1.5-5.4) or ASXL1 (1.8, 1.1-3.2) mutations were independently predictive of shortened survival (Figure). Conclusions: Momelotinib therapy in MF provides effective palliation in terms of anemia, splenomegaly and constitutional symptoms. However, less than 20% of treated patients enjoy durable long-term benefit and almost half experience drug-related and mostly irreversible peripheral neuropathy. Long-term survival and durability of response were superior in patients with type 1/type 1-like CALR mutations and inferior in those with ASXL1/SRSF2 mutations or unfavorable karyotype. Figure Figure. Disclosures Al-Kali: Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background : Two previous studies have reported significant but inconsistent associations between the presence of JAK2V617F in primary myelofibrosis (PMF) and older age at diagnosis, risk of thrombosis, higher leukocyte count, and inferior survival (Tefferi, et al. BJH2005;131:320, Campbell, et al. Blood2006;107:2098). The clinical relevance of V617F allele burden in PMF has not been previously studied. Methods : Diagnosis of PMF was based on the World Health Organization criteria and study eligibility included the availability of bone marrow-derived DNA that was collected either at time of diagnosis or within one year of diagnosis. Quantitative allele specific PCR was utilized to meaure V617F allele burden. Results I. V617F-positive vs. V617F-negative comparisons: A total of 199 patients (60% males; median age 61 years) were suitable for analysis of comparisons between mutation-positive and mutation-negative disease. The Dupriez prognostic scoring system (PSS) risk distributions were 61% low-risk, 31% intermediate-risk, and 8% high-risk. Hypercatabolic symptoms were present in 27% of the patients and ≥1% peripheral blood (PB) blasts in 37%. At a median follow-up of 23 months (range 0–266), 57 patients (29%) had died, 17 (9%) developed leukemic transformation (LT) and 10 (5%) experienced major thrombosis. V617F mutational frequency was 58%. Univariate analysis identified older age (p=0.0007), platelet count ≥ 100 x 109/L (p=0.05), and PB blast percentage < 3% (p=0.001) as being associated with a positive mutational status; all three variables sustained their significance during multivariable analysis. The presence of the mutation did not affect the incidence of thrombosis (p=0.78), overall survival (p=0.22) or leukemia-free survival (p=0.5). Results II. Clinical correlates of V617F allele burden: Quantitative measurement of V617F allele burden was performed in 129 patients that were divided into four groups: V617F-negative (n=53) and V617F-positive with mutant allele burden in the lower quartile (n=19), middle quartiles (n=38), or upper quartile (n=19) range (median and range of V617F allele burden ratio was 29% and 1% to 74%). Kaplan-Meier plots revealed significantly shortened overall (Figure; p = 0.0008) and leukemia-free (p = 0.01) survival for the lower quartile allele burden group; survival significance was sustained in a multivariable analysis that included the Dupriez PSS. Lower quartile allele burden was also associated with lower leukocyte count (p = 0.003) and presence of hypercatabolic symptoms (p=0.05). Thrombosis incidence was not affected by allele burden. Conclusions: In PMF, patients with a low V617F allele burden, compared to those with either undetectable (i.e. wild-type) or higher allele burden, display significantly shorter overall and leukemia-free survival. In contrast, the presence or absence of the mutation, by itself, does not result in distinct groups that differ significantly in terms of survival, LT, or incidence of thrombosis. These data suggest that a low V617F allele burden in PMF is a surrogate for the development of dominant V617F-negative subclones that are more likely to undergo LT. Figure Figure