Zweegman, Sonja

7569 Background: MAIA and CEPHEUS trials demonstrated that daratumumab (Dara) with standard of care (SOC) VRd or Rd significantly improved clinical outcomes versus SOC in TIE NDMM. Here we describe efficacy and safety in TIE pts from both trials by age and baseline (BL) frailty using the latest data cuts. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to DRd (n=368) or Rd (n=369) in MAIA and 1:1 to DVRd (n=144) or VRd (n=145) in CEPHEUS. Progression-free survival (PFS), complete response or better (≥CR), overall MRD negativity (neg) at 10 -5 with ≥CR, sustained MRD neg with ≥CR (confirmed MRD neg ≥12 ± 1 months [mo] apart without MRD positivity in between), and safety were assessed by age (<70, 70–<75, or ≥75 years [y]) and BL frailty (assessed by IFM simplified frailty score: 0–1, non-frail; ≥2, frail). Results: Median follow-up was 64.5 mo in MAIA and 76.0 mo in CEPHEUS. In MAIA, 155 (21%) pts were <70 y, 261 (35%) 70–<75 y, and 321 (44%) ≥75 y; 341 (46%) pts were frail, 88.0 % of whom were ≥70 y. In CEPHEUS TIE pts, 70 (24%) pts were <70 y, 133 (46%) 70–<75 y, and 86 (30%) ≥75 y; 83 (29%) pts were frail, 86% of whom were ≥70 y. DRd or DVRd improved PFS, MRD neg rates, sustained MRD neg rates, and ≥CR rates vs Rd or VRd arms across age and frailty subgroups in both trials (Table). Safety was consistent with established individual drug profiles, and adverse event rates were generally comparable across treatment arms and subgroups within both trials. Additional data on patient-specific factors relevant to these subgroups will be presented. Conclusions: Dara-based regimens improved efficacy outcomes across subgroups in MAIA and CEPHEUS trials, reinforcing Dara-based regimens as SOC in TIE NDMM regardless of age or frailty. These data offer clinically relevant insights to help guide treatment selection for TIE pts. Clinical trial information: NCT03652064 ; NCT02252172 . PFS, hazard ratio (95% CI) ≥CR rate, % MRD neg with ≥CR (10 -5 ) rate, % Sustained MRD neg with ≥CR (10 -5 ) rate, % Age/ Frailty status MAIA* CEPHEUS** MAIA* CEPHEUS ** MAIA* CEPHEUS** MAIA* CEPHEUS ** <70 y 0.35 (0.21–0.56) 0.60 (0.31–1.18) 56.4 vs 31.2 85.7 vs 68.6 35.9 vs 11.7 74.3 vs 42.9 25.6 vs 3.9 62.9 vs 28.6 70–<75 y 0.64 (0.45–0.89) 0.60 (0.37–0.99) 56.2 vs 31.3 77.9 vs 69.2 36.2 vs 12.2 55.9 vs 47.7 20.8 vs 5.3 45.6 vs 38.5 ≥75 y 0.59 (0.44–0.79) 0.46 (0.22–0.94) 44.4 vs 28.6 80.5 vs 44.4 26.9 vs 9.9 58.5 vs 26.7 13.8 vs 3.1 43.9 vs 15.6 Frail 0.64 (0.48–0.85) 0.62 (0.32–1.18) 44.8 vs 33.1 72.9 vs 54.3 25.6 vs 13.0 56.3 vs 34.3 15.7 vs 4.1 39.6 vs 17.1 Non-frail 0.48 (0.36–0.64) 0.51 (0.34–0.78) 56.6 vs 27.5 84.4 vs 63.6 37.8 vs 9.5 63.5 vs 41.8 21.4 vs 4.0 54.2 vs 32.7 *MAIA: DRd vs Rd; **CEPHEUS: DVRd vs VRd.

Abstract Both the phase 3 MAIA and ALCYONE studies demonstrated significant survival benefit with the addition of daratumumab to standard-of-care Rd (Revlimid [lenalidomide] and dexamethasone; D-Rd) or to VMP (Velcade [bortezomib], melphalan, and prednisone; D-VMP), respectively, vs Rd or VMP alone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Patients with NDMM are highly susceptible to infection; therefore, gaining a greater understanding of infection incidence may help to mitigate future risk. We conducted a pooled analysis of infection incidence, timing, and management strategies from MAIA and ALCYONE. The median (range) age of the pooled population was 72 (40-93) years. Incidence was higher with D-Rd/D-VMP vs Rd/VMP for grade 3/4 (36.9% vs 22.4%) and grade 5 (3.0% vs 1.5%) infections; however, exposure-adjusted incidence rates were generally comparable between groups. Any-grade infections led to the discontinuation of study treatment in ∼2% of patients across treatment groups. Of the timing intervals explored, the highest incidence of grade 3/4 infection occurred within the first 6-month interval of study treatment initiation in both groups. Median time to the first onset of grade 3/4 infections (per Kaplan-Meier estimates) was 83.3 months and not estimable in the D-Rd/D-VMP and Rd/VMP groups, respectively. Although the rates of D-Rd/D-VMP treatment discontinuation due to infection remained low in MAIA and ALCYONE, clinicians should remain vigilant about infections throughout treatment and follow local guidelines and International Myeloma Working Group recommendations to minimize the risk of infection. These trials were registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02252172 (MAIA) and NCT02195479 (ALCYONE).

8517 Background: An increased risk of SPM in MM pts treated with len has been reported. We performed an IPD metanalysis to estimate the incidence of SPM according to len exposure. Methods: Randomized studies of MM, from PubMed and ASCO/IMW/ASH (after 2000), that met the following criteria, were included: randomization to treatment with len (len-trials); randomization to treatment including new drug but not len (no-len-trials); available SPM data. Primary aim was to estimate cumulative incidence of SPMs by len exposure, corrected for death (competing event). Results: Data from 6,383 pts (3,218 from 8 len-trials, 3,165 from 10 no-len-trials) were analyzed. Median age was 69 years. During follow-up (median=30 mos) 420 (6.6%) SPMs were reported: 188 (2.9%) hematologic and 232 (3.6%) solid cancers. Solid tumors occurred with similar incidence in all groups. Incidence of hematologic SPM was significantly higher in patients receiving len (3.2 vs 1.1, p=0.04), but risk is limited to patients treated with melphalan+len (4.1, 95%CI: 2.4-5.8) with no excess in other combinations (len without melphalan: 1.2, 0.0-2.6; melphalan without len: 1.1, 0.0-2.7) (p=0.003). The cumulative incidence of death for any cause was much higher than the risk of SPM. Conclusions: The risk of hematologic SPMs was higher in pts receiving melphalan+len. The benefit/risk profile of len treatment remains positive. Cumulative incidence (%) of SPMs and death (95%CI). [Table: see text]

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

Abstract Introduction Maintenance therapy has been extensively explored as a strategy for prolonging the duration of disease control and potentially survival following ASCT. To date, only lenalidomide has been approved for this indication. However, lenalidomide maintenance is associated with the development of second primary malignancies and tolerability issues. PIs are a backbone of MM treatment, and bortezomib-based maintenance has shown promising activity post-ASCT, yet the benefit of PI-based maintenance has not been demonstrated in a phase 3 trial vs placebo. Moreover, the feasibility of bortezomib maintenance in routine clinical practice is limited due to tolerability and the need for regular parenteral administration. There is a need for an oral PI maintenance therapy that can be administered for a prolonged period, improve depth of response without cumulative or late-onset toxicity, and improve convenience for patients. Methods The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter TOURMALINE-MM3 study (NCT02181413) compared weekly ixazomib vs placebo maintenance in NDMM patients who had at least a partial response (≥PR) to induction therapy with a PI and/or immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) followed by single ASCT. Patients were randomized (3:2) to receive ixazomib or matched placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles for up to 2 years or until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified by induction regimen (PI without IMiD vs IMiD without PI vs PI+IMiD), pre-induction ISS stage (I vs II or III), and post-ASCT response (complete response [CR] or very good partial response [VGPR] vs PR). Patients were ineligible if they had received post-ASCT consolidation or tandem ASCT. The ixazomib dose was 3.0 mg during cycles 1-4, increasing to 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated during cycles 1-4. The primary endpoint was PFS per independent review committee (IRC), who were blinded to treatment assignment. The key secondary endpoint was OS. Here, we report data from the final analysis for PFS (data cut-off: April 16, 2018). Results 656 patients were randomized (395 ixazomib; 261 placebo). Patient demographics were balanced between groups; overall median age was 57 years (range, 24-73), 37% vs 63% had ISS I vs II or III, 59%/11%/30% had received PI without IMiD / IMiD without PI / PI+IMiD induction therapy, 34%/45%/21% had achieved CR / VGPR / PR following induction/ASCT, and 18% had high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16)]. After a median follow-up of 31 months with 54% of PFS events, there was a 28% reduction in the risk of progression/death, corresponding to a 39% improvement in PFS with ixazomib vs placebo (median 26.5 vs 21.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.72; 95% CI: 0.582, 0.890; p=0.002; Figure). In a landmark analysis from ASCT, PFS was 30.7 vs 24.9 months (HR 0.684; 95% CI: 0.551, 0.848; p<0.001). Median PFS2 and OS have not yet been reached in either arm. Ixazomib maintenance led to higher rates of deepened response compared with placebo (relative risk 1.41; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.80; p=0.004). Conversion from documented MRD positivity at study entry to MRD negativity occurred at a higher rate with ixazomib compared with placebo (12% vs 7%). PFS benefit was seen broadly across subgroups, including ISS III (HR 0.661), PI-exposed (HR 0.750), PI-naïve (HR 0.497), and patients with high-risk cytogenetics (HR 0.625). Discontinuation due to AEs was low (7% ixazomib vs 5% placebo). With ixazomib vs placebo, 42% vs 26% of patients had grade ≥3 AEs; 27% vs 20% had serious AEs; and 1 patient vs 0 died on treatment. Common grade ≥3 AEs were infections (15% vs 8%) including pneumonia (6% vs 4%), gastrointestinal disorders (6% vs 1%), neutropenia (5% vs 3%), and thrombocytopenia (5% vs <1%). Peripheral neuropathy rates were 19% vs 15% (<1% vs 0 grade 3). Rate of second primary malignancies was 3% in both arms. Global Quality of Life scores (EORTC QLQ-C30) on ixazomib were similar to placebo. Conclusions This study demonstrated a 28% reduction in the risk of progression/death, corresponding to a 39% improvement in PFS with ixazomib maintenance, with deepening of responses and increased conversions to MRD negativity over control, as well as a favorable safety profile, including an absence of risk of second primary malignancies and low rates of peripheral neuropathy, supporting ixazomib as a valuable option for maintenance therapy in responding patients post-ASCT. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Takeda Celgene, Amgen, BMS, and Roche: Other: Advisor; Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Celgene, BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schjesvold:Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Beksac:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Deva: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Weisel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding. Goldschmidt:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding. Maisnar:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chng:Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Aslan: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding. Kaiser:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Zweegman:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mateos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; STA: Honoraria. Iida:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kyowa-Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Toyama Chemical: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Teijin Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy. Morgan:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Teng:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Suryanarayan:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Skacel:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment; Department of Hematology, Charles University General Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic: Other: Affiliation. Dash:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Labotka:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment.

Abstract Background The JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib (RUX) is approved for treatment of myelofibrosis (MF). However, some patients do not respond to RUX, while others lose responsiveness or develop intolerance to RUX over time. Preclinical data also suggest that certain JAK2 mutations (eg the gatekeeper mutation M929I) may confer resistance to RUX (Leukemia 2012;26:708). Options for these RUX resistant/intolerant patients, particularly with regard to further JAK inhibitor therapy, are unclear. Fedratinib (SAR302503) is a JAK2-selective inhibitor which has demonstrated clinically meaningful reductions in splenomegaly and symptom burden in patients with MF, with an acceptable and consistent safety profile (J Clin Oncol 2011;29:789. Haematologica 2013;98:S1113). Fedratinib sensitivity in vitro is unaffected by the M929I mutation. This pre-specified interim analysis of the JAKARTA-2 study (NCT01523171) investigated the efficacy and safety of fedratinib in MF patients previously treated with RUX. Methods JAKARTA-2 is a Phase II, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study of patients who previously received RUX for MF. Patients ≥18 yrs with splenomegaly and platelet count ≥50 ×109/L received fedratinib 400 mg orally, once daily for consecutive 4-wk cycles (permitted dose adjustment to 200–600 mg daily). Eligible patients had received ≥14 d RUX treatment, and had discontinued RUX for ≥14 d prior to starting fedratinib. Although there is no consensus definition of RUX resistance/intolerance, for the purpose of this study patients were classed (investigator assessment) as resistant (lack or loss of response) or intolerant to RUX. Primary endpoint for the interim analysis: spleen response rate (RR) (≥35% reduction in spleen volume from baseline at Wk 12 [MRI/CT blinded central review]) in the per-protocol (PP) population. Secondary endpoints: symptom RR (≥50% reduction in total symptom score [TSS: modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form] from baseline to Wk 12) and safety. Results At the cut-off date for this interim analysis, 27 patients had received fedratinib treatment (median RUX exposure 10.7 months [range 1.9–34.4]): median age 69 yrs; 56% male; 67% primary MF; 63% high-risk MF; 67% JAK2V617F positive; 41% platelet count <100 × 109/L; baseline median spleen volume 3190 mL [1072–7815]; baseline median TSS 19.6 [4.9–46.0]. Eighteen patients were considered resistant by the treating physician (8 lack of response, 3 disease progression, 7 loss of response; median RUX exposure 11.1 months [range 1.9–34.4]) and 9 intolerant (6 hematologic, 3 non-hematologic toxicity; median RUX exposure 9.2 months [2.9–33.2]) to RUX. Median fedratinib exposure to cut-off date: 4 cycles (range 1–10); 19 patients remain on treatment. Spleen RRs were 40% (8/20 PP patients) and 43% (3/7) in patients with baseline platelet count <100 ×109/L. Overall, 19% (5/26 evaluable patients) had a symptom response by Wk 12 (Table). The majority of patients had a reduction in TSS at Wk 12 (Figure). The most common non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were gastrointestinal (nausea 67%; diarrhea 56%; vomiting 48%). Grade 3/4 diarrhea occurred in 2 patients; no Grade 3/4 vomiting or nausea. Anemia was the most common hematologic AE (all grades, 93%; Grade 3, 41%; Grade 4, 0%). Thrombocytopenia (all grades) occurred in 19 (70%) patients; Grade 3 in 6 patients and Grade 4 in 2 patients. One patient had Grade 3 AST elevations and 1 patient had Grade 3 hyperbilirubinemia. Seven patients (26%) discontinued treatment due to AEs. There were 2 deaths on study, both due to disease progression. Conclusions Interim results from the JAKARTA-2 study indicate that once-daily fedratinib provides clinical benefit, through reduced splenomegaly and symptom burden, in MF patients previously treated with RUX. The safety profile was acceptable and manageable, with safety results to date consistent with those reported in previous trials of fedratinib. Sponsored by Sanofi. Disclosures: 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. Jourdan:Sanofi: Honoraria. Kiladjian:Novartis, Celgene, AOP Orphan: Research Funding; Novartis, Sanofi, AOP Orphan: Honoraria; Novartis, Sanofi, AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cervantes:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Novartis and Sanofi: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Niederwieser:Novartis Pharma: Consultancy. Cortes:Incyte, Sanofi: Consultancy; Incyte, Sanofi: Research Funding. Passamonti:Novartis, Celgene, Incyte, Sanofi, Roche: Honoraria. Reiter:Sanofi: Honoraria. Heidel:Novartis Inc.: Honoraria; Novartis Inc.: Research Funding; Novartis Inc.: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Silver:Sanofi: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria. Winton:Sanofi: Research Funding. Gupta:Incyte, Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte, Novartis: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Gisslinger:AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Sanofi, Shire, Celgene, Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Sanofi, Shire, Celgene, Janssen: Honoraria. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Talpaz:Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ariad, Deciphera: Research Funding; Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ariad, Deciphera: Speakers Bureau. Zhang:Sanofi: Employment. Shi:Sanofi: Employment. Mesa:Incyte, Genentech, Lilly, MS Pharma, Gilead: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3839 BACKGROUND: We have previously reported on the validation of the 18 item Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) (Blood 2011;118:401–408) given in conjunction with the 9 item Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) (Cancer 1999;85:1186–1196) to assess symptomatic burden in an international sample of MPN patients (pts), including validation in English, Italian, Swedish, German, French, Spanish, and Dutch. We desired to assess the utility of an average total symptom score (TSS) from the most pertinent and representative MPN symptoms for purposes of assessing the burden of symptoms in MPN pts, and subsequent tracking in response to therapy. METHODS: Data was collected among an international cohort of MPN pts and their physicians, including patient demographics and disease features and completion the BFI, MPN-SAF and the EORTC-QLQ-C30. Among pts who completed at least 5 of 10 specific items on the BFI and MPN-SAF, an average score was calculated as the TSS. TSS items included “worst” fatigue from the BFI and 9 items from the MPN-SAF including concentration, early satiety, inactivity, night sweats, itching, bone pain, abdominal discomfort, weight loss and fever. The TSS thus had a possible range of 0–10 with 10 representing the highest level of symptom severity. Data was then analyzed for internal consistency, and divergent, convergent validity, and construct validity. RESULTS: Patient Demographic and Disease Characteristics:1433 MPN pts were prospectively enrolled (Argentina 22, France 482, Germany 59, Italy 186, Netherlands 236, Puerto Rico 10, United Kingdom 57, United States 102, Spain 157, Sweden 114, Uruguay 8) including 594 ET, 538 PV and 293 MF pts (8 missing; MF: 61% Primary MF, 23% post-ET MF, 15% post-PV MF). 1408 pts completed at least 5 of the 10 items necessary to calculate a TSS. Pts were of characteristic age (mean 62, range 20–94) and gender (54% female) common to disease. TSS Burden of MPN Symptoms: Consistent with prior studies, the majority of pts (>50%) were symptomatic in each TSS item except for items associated with high disease severity, namely bone pain (48.6%), weight loss (30.6%) and fever (18.4%). Fatigue carried the highest symptom intensity (4.4, SD=2.8), followed by problems with concentration (2.5, SD=2.8) and early satiety (2.5, SD=2.7). Overall mean TSS was 2.1 (SD=1.6). Divergent Validity: TSS significantly differed among MPN disease subtypes (p<0.001) with means of 1.9 (SD=1.5), 2.2 (SD=1.6), and 2.5 (SD=1.7) for ET, PV, and MF pts, respectively. Statistically significant differences in TSS were also observed between pts with clinically deficient (>4, n=480) versus non-clinically deficient QOL (<4, n=894; mean 3.3 versus 1.5; p<0.001). When comparing to MD perceptions, TSS was significantly higher when MDs rated >2 of 6 common MPN-related symptoms as clinically significant (2.8, n=400) versus <2 symptoms (1.6, n=726; p<0.001). No significant trends were observed when comparing disease type by the presence of a current medical therapy. Convergent Validity: The TSS was strongly correlated with patient-reported QOL (r=0.59, p<0.001). Overall excellent correlations existed between the TSS and EORTC-QLQ-C30 functional subscales (all p<0.001 and r>0.50 except social functioning [r=0.48]). Additionally, excellent correlations were observed between the TSS and EORTC-QLQ-C30 fatigue and pain symptom scales (r>0.5, p<0.001). Internal Consistency and Construct Validity: The TSS had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.83). Factor analysis identified a single underlying construct among the 10 TSS items (significant eigenvalues being >1). Factor loadings ranged from 0.43 for fever and weight loss to 0.71 for inactivity. The single factor suggests that the arithmetic mean of the 10 items is an appropriate global TSS score. CONCLUSION: The TSS demonstrated excellent psychometric properties. Overall, results of validity and internal consistency indicate that the TSS is a concise, valid, and accurate assessment of symptom burden among MPN pts. This new scoring will facilitate ease of implementation of the MPN-SAF into larger clinical trials and reduce ambiguity associated with interpreting response outcomes. Future analyses to investigate the impact of therapies on TSS are ongoing. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background Myelofibrosis (MF) is a clonal myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) associated with a high degree of symptomatology, progressive cytopenias and potential to transform into acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). Thrombocytopenia amongst MF patients is a proven negative prognostic indicator and predictor of transformation to AML. Ruxolitinib is an effective JAK inhibitor for MF symptoms and splenomegaly, but is not indicated in patients with severe thrombocytopenia. Phase III trials of pacritinib have shown alleviation of the MF symptom burden amongst patients with thrombocytopenia (ASCO 2015 Mesa et. al.). In this study, we assessed the symptom burden of MF patients with significant thrombocytopenia who were naïve to pacritinib. Methods Data was assessed from a prospectively collected international database of MF patients in which demographics, disease features, and MF symptoms utilizing the myeloproliferative neoplasm symptom assessment form (MPN-SAF; Scherber et al, 2011). The MPN-SAF includes the patient's perceptions of common MPN-related symptoms and overall quality of life (QOL) on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale. Total symptom score (TSS) was computed based on symptom items using the published scoring algorithm on a 0 (all reported symptoms absent) to 100 (all reported symptoms worst imaginable) scale. MF risk scores were calculated using the DIPSS criteria (Gangat, 2011). Thrombocytopenia was defined as a platelet count <100 x 10(9)/L, anemia was defined as hemoglobin<10 g/dL and leukopenia was defined as a white blood cell count <4.0 x 10(9)/L. Associations between the MPN-SAF individual symptoms were investigated using Pearson correlations. Results Demographic and Disease Features: A total of 418 patients with (n=89) and without (n=329) thrombocytopenia completed the MPN-SAF. Patients with thrombocytopenia were slightly younger (57.4 vs. 61.0, p=0.01) with longer disease durations (11.9 years vs. 8.8 years, p=0.0489) and had a higher prevalence of primary myelofibrosis (PMF; 82% vs. 66%, p=0.01). The presence of thrombocytopenia was associated with other laboratory abnormalities including anemia (60.7% vs. 25.3%, p<0.001) and leukopenia (34.8% vs. 52.3%, p<0.001), along with the need for red blood cell transfusions (34.8% vs. 14.6%, p<0.001). Patient cohorts did not differ by gender, DIPSS risk score, history of prior thrombosis or hemorrhage. In comparing patients with severe thrombocytopenia (<50 x 10(9)/L, n=43) to those with moderate thrombocytopenia (51-100 x 10(9)/L, n=46), severe thrombocytopenia patients were more likely to have anemia (74.4% vs. 47.8%, p=0.01) and require red blood cell transfusions (51.2% vs. 19.6%, p=0.002). Symptoms Scores for individual MPN-SAF items were assessed for each subgroup. Patients with thrombocytopenia had markedly higher total symptom scores than patients without thrombocytopenia (32.8 vs. 24.1, p<0.001). Individual scores were also higher for most items (fatigue, early satiety, inactivity, dizziness, sad mood, sexuality, cough, night sweats, itching, fever, weight loss, overall QOL)[Figure 1]. No significant differences in MPN SAF TSS or individual symptom scores were observed in comparing severe vs. moderate thrombocytopenia patients. Discussion MF patients with thrombocytopenia have distinctive clinical characteristics and face a significantly more severe symptom burden. Importantly, despite thrombocytopenia being a recognized risk factor for disease advancement, no correlations are noted between patient symptomatology and risk category. In addition, patients with severe thrombocytopenia do not differ symptomatically from patients with moderate thrombocytopenia despite having more severe anemia, leukopenia and transfusion requirements. This implies that the degree of symptomatology expressed by thrombocytopenic MF patients occurs independent from the exact platelet value. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that patients with thrombocytopenia will benefit from aggressive symptomatic control, potentially from targeted agents. Figure 1. MF Symptoms in Patients With and Without Thrombocytopenia Figure 1. MF Symptoms in Patients With and Without Thrombocytopenia Disclosures Kiladjian: Novartis: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Travel grant; Research Funding paid to institution (Hôpital Saint-Louis et Université Paris Diderot); Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Zweegman:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Harrison:Shire: Speakers Bureau; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cervantes:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; CTI-Baxter: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Barbui:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Etienne:ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress Travel/Accomodations, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Roy:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Vannucchi:Shire: Speakers Bureau; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa:Novartis. Research- incyte, Gilead, cti, Genentech, promedior, NS Pharma: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: The Philadelphia chromosome negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), including essential thrombocythemia (ET), polycythemia vera (PV) and myelofibrosis (MF) all have a time dependent risk of progression to either an advanced myelofibrotic state (post ET/PV MF) and/or to acute myeloid leukemia. The impact of disease duration upon the MPN symptom burden is not well understood, nor are the precise mechanisms of disease progression. We sought to better understand the impact of disease duration on MPN symptom burden. Methods: Symptom burden data was collected utilizing the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) amongst MPN patients, collected at the time of an office visit in an international cohort of MPN patients as previously described (Scherber et. al.). Symptom burden assessment was a previously validated 27-item symptom burden questionnaire scored on a 0-10 scale (0= as good as it can be, 10 = as bad as it could be). The patient or provider was asked to report the time since MPN diagnosis. MPN duration was determined to be early if the diagnosis was established between 0 to 5 years ago, intermediate if the diagnosis was established between 6 to 10 years ago, and late if the diagnosis was established 11 years ago or more. Anemia was defined as a red blood cell count less than 10 g/dL, leukopenia was defined as a white blood cell count was below 4 x 109, and thrombocytopenia if the platelet count was below 150 x109. Statistical significance was calculated using ANOVA f-test and chi squared. Results: Patient demographics and disease burden: A total of 1443 patients responded to the survey, including 592 (41%) ET, 549 (38%) PV, and 302 (21%) MF patients, including 181 (60%) primary MF, 67 (22%) post-ET MF, and 54 (18%) post-PV MF. Among MF patients, mean duration of MPN diagnosis was 9 years, and mean duration MF diagnosis was 4.7 years. Among respondents, 757 fit criteria for early disease duration, 353 fit criteria for intermediate disease duration, and 333 fit criteria for late disease duration. Respondent mean age was 62 years and approximately half of respondents were female (55%). Patients with longer diagnosis duration tended to be older (p=0.009) and were most likely to have anemia (0.02), leukopenia (p=0.01), or thrombocytopenia (p=0.03). These individuals were also most likely to have a history of hemorrhage (p=0.007) or require red blood cell transfusions (p<0.001). Combined cohort symptom burden: On average among the combined cohort of ET, PV and MF patients, symptoms tended to worsen with time with this effect being significant for symptom items of fatigue (BFI, p<0.04), concentration (p=0.007), insomnia (p=0.02), sexual difficulties (p=0.002), cough (p=0.03), night sweats (p=0.002), and pruritus (p=0.02). Symptoms of early satiety (p=0.004), concentration difficulties (p=0.01), insomnia (p=0.03), sexual difficulties (p=0.02), cough (p=0.01), and night sweats (p=<0.001) had significantly higher prevalence in those with longer disease duration. Similarly, the total calculated MPN-10 score (p=0.008) and quality of life assessment (0.03) demonstrated worsened outcomes with time (Table 1). No significant differences in symptoms for the combined cohort were observed among individuals diagnosed 0 to 1 years ago compared to those with a diagnosis established between 2 and 5 years ago. Symptom burden in MPN subtypes. When evaluating specific MPN types, patients with essential thrombocythemia experienced significantly greater sexual difficulties over time (p=0.03). The severity (p=0.01) and incidence (p=0.03) of pruritus and incidence of night sweats (p<0.001) were significantly increased over time for individuals with PV. For those with MF, the severity (p= 0.01) and incidence (p=0.009) of cough also significantly increased with longer diagnosis duration. Discussion Overall, significant worsening in symptom burden can be recognized over time for individuals diagnosed with MPNs. Diagnosis may not necessarily correlate with disease duration as the timing of diagnosis may be delayed from onset of disease. Given the intent of this abstract to evaluate changes with disease duration, we did not investigate correlations between symptom burden and cytopenias. We do know that risk factors for survival in the MPNs include older age and thrombosis, however, disease duration should be investigated as an alternative marker of burden in future survival studies. Disclosures Harrison: CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Travel grant; Research Funding paid to institution (Hôpital Saint-Louis et Université Paris Diderot); Novartis: Consultancy. Zweegman:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Barbui:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Etienne:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress Travel/Accomodations, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. te Boekhorst:CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Research Funding paid to institution (University of Florence), Research Funding; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa:Novartis. Research- incyte, Gilead, cti, Genentech, promedior, NS Pharma: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) is characterized by a highly variable disease course, which can be traced to initiating and acquired genomic events. Whole exome analysis of matched tumor and germline DNA from 287 MM patients identified recurrently somatically mutated genes (RSMGs) (Lohr et al. - Cancer Cell 2014, Bolli et al. - Nat Commun 2014). Despite the fact that these RSMGs affect pathways that are biologically important in MM, the clinical relevance of many of these genes in the context of conventional prognostic markers remains to be elucidated. Aims The aims of this pilot study were: (1) To validate the prevalence of RSMGs in our newly diagnosed MM patient cohort; (2) To assess the correlation between RSMGs, clinical parameters and outcome; (3) To thereby identify the potential clinical usefulness of introducing RSMG mutational profiling in larger MM trial cohorts. Material and Methods CD138+ enriched MM cells and peripheral blood were obtained with informed consent from chemotherapy-naive patients, participating in 3 clinical trials: HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4, HOVON-87/NMSG-18 and Carthadex (EudraCT number 2004-000944-26, 2007-004007-34 and 2009-014922-40, respectively). Matched tumor and germline DNA were sequenced on an Ion Torrent sequencing platform (PGM, Life Technologies), using the M3 P Mutational Panel v3.0, comprising 1327 customized oligos (Life Technologies), targeted at the coding sequences of 88 MM-relevant genes, including the RSMGs. Somatic mutations were considered positive when present in >=10% of tumor reads and <=10% germline reads, with a minimal coverage of 10x and being non-synonymous, or splice donor variants. All statistical analyses were performed in SPSS version 23, using the log-rank and Mann-Whitney U-test, with the Bonferroni test to correct for multiple comparisons. Results A total of 206 DNA samples were sequenced from 103 patients (HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 (n=16), HOVON-87/NMSG-18 (n=67), Carthadex (n=20)) with an average coverage of 574x in tumor DNA, 451x in germline DNA and an overall coverage of 98%. We collected follow-up data from 102/103 patients, with a median follow-up time of 30 months. 168 somatic mutations were detected in 44/88 genes. 82% of patients had at least 1 somatic mutation. Genes most frequently mutated were: (1) NRAS (26%), (2) KRAS (22%), (3) DIS3 (14%), (4) FAM46C (9%), (5) TP53 (7%) and (6) BRAF (6%) (Figure 1). Of note, NRAS and KRAS mutations were mutually exclusive in our cohort. Moreover, all TP53 mutations were located in its DNA binding domain. Three out of 6 BRAF mutations were predicted to cause a V600E amino acid change. We focused on these 6 RSMGs in all further analyses. Correlating mutational status with Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) showed that TP53 mutated patients had a significantly shorter PFS compared to those with wildtype TP53 (adj. p-value=0,018; n=7 versus n=95). Comparing the mutational status of the 6 RSMGs, transplant versus non-transplant protocol, number of mutated genes in the M3 P panel, del17p and t(4;14) status, EMC92 score and ISS stage between patients with a PFS <=1 year and >1 year (n=23 versus n=79), only showed a significant correlation with TP53 mutational status (adj. p-value=0,012). TP53 mutational status remained the only significant prognostic factor when comparing patients with an OS <=1 year and >1 year (adj. p-value=0,003; n=13 versus n=89). When comparing the number of mutated genes, del17p and t(4;14) status, EMC92 score, transplant versus non-transplant protocol and ISS stage between TP53 mutated and wildtype MM, TP53 mutated patients had a significantly higher number of mutated genes in the M3 P panel (adj. p-value=0,001). Conclusions (1) With the M3 P Mutational Panel, we confirm the published prevalence of RSMGs in MM in our cohort of chemotherapy-naive patients. NRAS, KRAS, DIS3, FAM46C, TP53 and BRAF are the most frequently mutated genes. (2) TP53 mutational status is the strongest unfavorable prognostic factor in our cohort and it seems to be associated with greater mutational burden. Validation in a more extensive population is planned. (3) This warrants further investigation of the mutational status of these genes in larger clinical trial cohorts, enabling a more robust comparison with conventional prognostic markers in a multivariate analysis. Disclosures Broijl: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zweegman:Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Sonneveld:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.