Dueck, Amylou C.

PURPOSE The PALLAS study investigated whether the addition of palbociclib, an oral CDK4/6 inhibitor, to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) improves invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in early hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2–) breast cancer. In this analysis, we evaluated palbociclib exposure and discontinuation in PALLAS. METHODS Patients with stage II-III HR+, HER2– disease were randomly assigned to 2 years of palbociclib with adjuvant ET versus ET alone. The primary objective was to compare iDFS between arms. Continuous monitoring of toxicity, dose modifications, and early discontinuation was performed. Association of baseline covariates with time to palbociclib reduction and discontinuation was analyzed with multivariable competing risk models. Landmark and inverse probability weighted per-protocol analyses were performed to assess the impact of drug persistence and exposure on iDFS. RESULTS Of the 5,743 patient analysis population (2,840 initiating palbociclib), 1,199 (42.2%) stopped palbociclib before 2 years, the majority (772, 27.2%) for adverse effects, most commonly neutropenia and fatigue. Discontinuation of ET did not differ between arms. Discontinuations for non–protocol-defined reasons were greater in the first 3 months of palbociclib, and in the first calendar year of accrual, and declined over time. No significant relationship was seen between longer palbociclib duration or ≥ 70% exposure intensity and improved iDFS. In the weighted per-protocol analysis, no improvement in iDFS was observed in patients receiving palbociclib versus not (hazard ratio 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.11). CONCLUSION Despite observed rates of discontinuation in PALLAS, analyses suggest that the lack of significant iDFS difference between arms was not directly related to inadequate palbociclib exposure. However, the discontinuation rate illustrates the challenge of introducing novel adjuvant treatments, and the need for interventions to improve persistence with oral cancer therapies.

BackgroundDecision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within‐visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled.MethodsThe interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12‐item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation.ResultsFour sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within‐visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within‐visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within‐visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within‐visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual‐care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within‐visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively).ConclusionsDAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.

PURPOSE Palbociclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor approved for advanced breast cancer. In the adjuvant setting, the potential value of adding palbociclib to endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive breast cancer has not been confirmed. PATIENTS AND METHODS In the prospective, randomized, phase III PALLAS trial, patients with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative early breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily, days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with adjuvant endocrine therapy or adjuvant endocrine therapy alone (for at least 5 years). The primary end point of the study was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS); secondary end points were invasive breast cancer–free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, locoregional cancer-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS Among 5,796 patients enrolled at 406 centers in 21 countries worldwide over 3 years, 5,761 were included in the intention-to-treat population. At the final protocol-defined analysis, at a median follow-up of 31 months, iDFS events occurred in 253 of 2,884 (8.8%) patients who received palbociclib plus endocrine therapy and in 263 of 2,877 (9.1%) patients who received endocrine therapy alone, with similar results between the two treatment groups (iDFS at 4 years: 84.2% v 84.5%; hazard ratio, 0.96; CI, 0.81 to 1.14; P = .65). No significant differences were observed for secondary time-to-event end points, and subgroup analyses did not show any differences by subgroup. There were no new safety signals for palbociclib in this trial. CONCLUSION At this final analysis of the PALLAS trial, the addition of adjuvant palbociclib to standard endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone in patients with early hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.

Abstract TGFβ plays a pivotal role in the pathobiology of myelofibrosis (MF) by not only promoting bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) but also by enhancing the dormancy of normal but not MF hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). TGFβ has also previously been reported to inhibit normal megakaryocyte (MK) production (Bruno et al Blood 1998). TGFβ1 promotes the synthesis of collagen by normal human mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs). Treatment of MSCs with AVID200, a potent TGFβ1/3 protein trap, significantly decreased MSC proliferation, phosphorylation of SMAD2, and collagen expression. Robust expression of pSMAD2 was observed in the absence of exogenous TGFβ in normal donor or MF-MKs, Addition of AVID200 to MKs decreased pSMAD2 without affecting total SMAD2/3 and led to increased numbers of MKs. Treatment of MF MNCs with AVID200 also led to increased numbers of progenitor cells with wild type JAK2 and a reduction of mutated colonies. A phase 1b trial of AVID200 (NCT03895112) was performed and completed in INT-2/high risk MF patients resistant/intolerant to ruxolitinib (rux); baseline platelet count of ≥ 25 x 10 9/L, and grade 2/3 BMF. Subjects received AVID200 intravenously on Day 1 of a 21 day cycle. Response was assessed by IWG/ELN criteria after 6 cycles of AVID200. Subjects attaining at least a CI or SD with a decrease in BMF by ≥1 grade, continued AVID200. We previously presented the results of the dose escalation study (Mascarenhas ASH 2020) demonstrating that AVID200 was well tolerated without dose limiting toxicities at 3 tested dose levels (Lots A and B) in dose cohorts of 180 mg (A), 550 mg (A)/70 mg (B), and 180 mg (B). Here we report updated safety and efficacy results of the phase 1b dose expansion stage at the two highest doses tested (70 mg (B) and 180 mg (B). Twenty-two subjects were enrolled (1 withdrew before receiving treatment) and 9 were treated with AVID200 in the dose escalation phase and 12 in the dose expansion phase [Table1]. Median time after rux discontinuation was 7.4 months (0.5-59.9). The most common mutations observed at baseline in this cohort included JAK2V617F (71%), TET2 (29%) ASXL1 (24%) and CALR (19%). (Fig 1) No DLTs were observed and Grade 3/4 AEs were observed in 16 (76.2%) subjects. Grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs were observed in 8 (38.1%) subjects and included one subject in each case (epistaxis, mucositis, extraocular muscle paresis, fatigue, rash, duodenal hemorrhage, gastric hemorrhage, urinary tract infection, and syncope). Grade 3/4 hematologic AEs were anemia (6; 28.3%) and thrombocytopenia (2; 14.3%) [Table 2]. No fatal events were observed. The median number of cycles received was 5 (range 2 - 13) and 7 (33%) patients received more than 6 cycles. For dose levels 2-3 at cycle 7, a CI was attained in one subject at dose level 2 [anemia, spleen and TSS], 5 subjects had SD, 3 subjects had PD and two subjects with 10% and 15% blasts at screening developed MPN-BP while on study based on central review. Reasons for discontinuation by local PI included PD (n=8), lack of response (n=5), study completed (n=2), other (n=2), patient decision (n=1). Median % change in palpable spleen length was +10% (range -70% to +150%) and TSS change was -50% (-100% to +185.7%) The median platelet count at baseline was 114 x 10 9/L (range: 28-695) and 215 x 10 9/L (range: 66-263) after cycle 6 in 7 evaluable subjects (Fig 2A). Notably, 17 subjects had an increase in platelets from baseline during treatment and two subjects normalized their platelet counts. Maximum changes in platelets from baseline across all cycles was +63.8% [range -15.7%, +505.5%] (Fig 2B). Paired bone marrow biopsy pathology samples for 12 subjects were available for central review and showed no significant changes in BMF score or MK histo topography at end of treatment compared to baseline. All patients had elevated plasma levels of TGF β1, but not TGFβ2/β3 levels as detected by ELISA, which were dramatically reduced 21 days after the last dose of AVID200. AVID200 a TGFβ1/3 protein trap is well tolerated and clinical responses at cycle 7 of therapy in this advanced MF patient population were limited as judged by IWG/MRT response criteria. However, AVID200 therapy resulted in significant reduction in serum TGFβ levels and improvements in platelet counts indicating that TGF β1 plays a pivotal role in MF leading to thrombocytopenia which can be reversed with AVID200 therapy. We conclude that AVID200 may best be employed in combination therapy approaches in thrombocytopenic MF patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Constellation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Promedior: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Geron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forbius: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PharmaEssentia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Galecto: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prelude: Consultancy; Kartos: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI Biopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Geron: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merus: Research Funding. Palmer: PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protagonist: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kuykendall: Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Pharmaessentia: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Protagonist: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Abbvie: Honoraria; Blueprint: Honoraria. Mesa: Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharma: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rampal: Stemline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Memorial Sloan Kettering: Current Employment; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Disc Medicine: Consultancy; Blueprint: Consultancy; Pharmaessentia: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Constellation: Research Funding; Kartos: Consultancy; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy. Gerds: PharmaEssentia Corporation: Consultancy; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Constellation: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Yacoub: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ACCELERON PHARMA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Dynavex: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Cara: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Talpaz: Imago: Consultancy; Constellation: 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; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Grant/research support ; Celgene: Consultancy. Komrokji: Acceleron: Consultancy; Taiho Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; BMSCelgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; PharmaEssentia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Geron: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Kremyanskaya: Astellas: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Chimerix: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Salama: Mayo Clinic: Current Employment, Other: Mayo Clinic had the contractual work for the central pathology review for this study and I was one of the reviewing pathologists; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hoffman: Kartos Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; AbbVie Inc.: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: AVID200 is a TGFb trap and is in clinical testing for fibrotic diseases. It does not have an approved indication at this time.

Abstract MAJIC is a phase II trial of Ruxolitinib (RUX) vs Best Available Therapy (BAT) in polycythemia vera (PV) patients with resistance/intolerance to Hydroxycarbamide (HC). This analysis involved a primary comparison between the RUX and BAT arms for quality of life (QOL) durability over 60 months, with secondary comparisons of best QOL response within first year in complete hematologic responders (CR) vs a group of partial or no response (NR/PR). This is a unique analysis due to cross-over nature of prior studies. Patients were stratified by treatment arm with either RUX or BAT. QOL was assessed over 0-60 months using the Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF). MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS) was computed as the average of all completed items multiplied by 10 (scale 0-100, higher score represents higher symptom burden). Estimates of change from baseline and between arm differences in change by timepoint were made using a linear mixed model with compound symmetry covariance structure, which included covariates for categorical time point, treatment arm, and the interaction between time point and treatment arm. The difference between arms in proportion of patients with best post-baseline TSS response of 50% or greater was testing using a Chi-square test. In this study, 147 of the 190 trial patients had started treatment and completed at least their baseline assessment and were included in the analysis with 39 patients completing through 60 months. Groups were comprised of 76 patients in the RUX group (31 females, 45 males, mean age 64.2 [SD 11.4]) and 71 patients in the BAT group (29 females, 42 males, mean age 64.6 [SD 11.5]). Symptom scores at baseline were similar between arms, with MPN-SAF weight loss the only statistically significant difference (BAT 0.7 [SD 1.71] vs RUX 1.7 [SD 2.83], p=0.02). Significant, durable improvements in TSS were noted in RUX patients with symptom improvements lasting a mean of 52 months. BAT patients experienced a worsening of their symptom burden with improvements back to baseline notable at 56 months (Figure 1). MPN-SAF TSS there were significant differences between treatment arms in change from baseline to months 2-32, 44, and 48 (all p<0.05). In all months the trend was in the direction of larger improvement in the RUX arm, with the point estimate for difference ranging from 2.1 (at month 56) to 11.3 (at month 4) with most prominent changes occurring between months 2 and 32. Of the 80 patients with MPN-SAF TSS scores at baseline and at least one post-baseline timepoint, 13/41 (31.7%) BAT and 24/39 (61.5%) RUX patients had TSS reduction of 50% or greater in at least one time point, which was statistically significant (p=0.008). In regard to specific symptoms, there was a statistically significant between arm difference seen in over 5 timepoints for fatigue, early satiety, night-sweats, itching, bone pain, and weight loss. Comparing MPN-SAF TSS in Complete Response (CR n=51) vs Non-Responder/Partial Responders (NR/PR) (n=96) there was no difference at baseline in any of the measures at any time point. A possible limitation of this study is the potential for bias in which the patients who were lost to follow up could be different then the patients who remained in the study through all 60 months which would affect generalization, particularly at time points at the later years. The novel findings of this investigation demonstrate that Ruxolitinib ameliorates the PV symptom burden in patients resistant or intolerant to HC in a robust durable manner over at least four years, while patients receiving BAT have worsening of their symptom burden over this same time period. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mead: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Yap: Celgene: Honoraria; Faron Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Scherber: Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Knapper: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Ended employment in the past 24 months, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Drummond: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. McMullin: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: clinical trial support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mesa: CTI: Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Pharma: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy. Harrison: CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Galacteo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Promedior: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract The myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) polycythaemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythaemia (ET) are associated with significant symptom burden with impaired quality of life (QoL). In the MAJIC study patients refractory/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC), were randomised to treatment with ruxolitinib (Rux) or best available therapy (BAT). In this unique and comprehensive analysis we explore quality of life (QoL) outcomes in the MAJIC study using the MPN10 Self-Assessment Form (SAF) in particular using this unique dataset to explore for the first time differences between JAK2 ET vs PV, and JAK2 ET vs CALR ET at baseline and 12 months of therapy with Rux or BAT. Methods 306 patients were randomised, (190, PV and 116 ET arm) and followed for 5 years, no cross over was permitted. MPN10 SAF was assessed at baseline, 2, 4, 8 and 12 months in both arms. Equal variance two sample t-tests were used to test differences between diagnosis groups (JAK2 ET vs PV & JAK2 ET vs CALR ET) in baseline scores and 12-month change from baseline scores, here negative change from baseline indicates improvement. QoL data was also collected using MD Anderson Symptoms Inventory (MDASI) and 5 level EQ5D at the same time points as the MPN10 SAF. Results JAK2 ET vs PV 110 participants with JAK2 mutation were included in the analysis for JAK2 ET vs PV. 81 (74%) had PV and 29 (26%) had JAK2 ET; 44 patients (54.3%) with PV and 18 (62.1%) patients with ET were randomised to Rux, and 37 (45.6%) patients with PV and 11 (37.9%) with ET to BAT. Baseline mean total symptom score (TSS) was similar (JAK2 ET: 18.9. SD 18.4 and PV: 23.7, SD 17.81 (p=0.27). Mean for pruritus was 1.9 (SD 2.47) in JAK2 ET and 3.5 (SD 2.99) in PV (p=0.03). Other baseline scores were comparable: mean scores for fatigue was 3.3 (SD 3.07) for JAK2 ET vs 4.7 (SD 2.68) for PV, for early satiety was 2.6 (SD 2.78) for JAK2 ET vs 2.1 (SD 2.40) for PV, for abdominal discomfort 3.0 (SD 3.34) for JAK2 ET vs 2.0 (SD 2.78) for PV, for inactivity was 2.4 (SD 2.86) for JAK2 ET vs 3.2 (SD 2.72) for PV; for concentration problems was 2.2 (SD 2.51) for JAK2 ET vs 2.9 (SD 3.11) for PV, for night sweats was 1.6 (SD 2.20) for JAK2 ET vs 2.1 (SD 2.66) for PV, for bone pain was 1.8 (SD 2.97) for JAK2 ET vs 2.0 (SD 2.86) for PV, for fever was 0.5 (SD 1.46) for JAK2 ET vs 0.5 (SD 1.70) for PV and for weight loss was 0.3 (SD 0.73) for JAK2 ET vs 1.0 (SD 2.15) for PV (p>0.05 for all). Concerning change at 12 months, mean (SD) change in TSS was -0.5 (SD 10.86) for JAK2 ET (n=21) vs -0.8 (SD 13.32) for PV (n=66) (P=0.93). Mean for individual symptom scores at 12 months were also not significantly different between the two phenotypic disease group (P>0.05 for all parameters). (Fig 1, top panels). CALR vs JAK2 ET Exploring symptoms for CALR vs JAK2 ET: 45 patients were included; 9/16 (56.3%) CALR and 18/29 (62.1%) JAK2 patients were assigned to Rux (p=0.70). 10/16 (62.5%) CALR ET and 19/29 (65.5%) JAK2 ET. Baseline mean total symptom score (TSS) was similar (JAK2 ET: 18.9, SD 18.4 and CALR ET: 18.8, SD 16.99 (p=0. 0.98). All other baseline scores were comparable in this intolerant/ refractory population (p>0.05 for all. Concerning change at 12 months, mean (SD) change in TSS was -0.5 (SD 10.86) for JAK2 ET vs -2.8 (SD 9.96) for CALR ET (P=0.56). Mean for individual symptom scores at 12 months were also not significantly different between the two phenotypic disease group (P>0.05 for all parameters); the mean change in night sweats approached but did not reach significance similar (JAK2 ET: 0.2 (SD 1.89) and CALR ET: 1.8 (SD 3.07) (p=0. 0.06). (Fig 1, lower panels). Preliminary analysis of the MDASI and EQ5D-5L data at baseline and at 12 months shows similar results and will be presented. Conclusion This first analysis of its kind compared the symptom burden and other parameters of QoL of patients with PV and ET, resistant/intolerant to HC shows that with the exception of pruritus at baseline there were no substantial differences between JAK2 ET or PV. Equally changes in symptom burden across 12 months did not substantially differ between JAK2 ET or PV. A second analysis of JAK2 vs CALR ET also failed to show substantial differences. This data should be expanded in a larger cohort but supports a symptom continuum of JAK2 ET and PV and also JAK2 vs CALR ET. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mead: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Yap: Faron Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Knapper: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Drummond: CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mesa: Pharma: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy; Samus: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding. Scherber: Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. McMullin: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: clinical trial support, Research Funding. Harrison: CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Promedior: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Galacteo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Introduction: Factors contributing to the antitumor activity of systemic oncolytic virotherapy (OV) include (i) generalized innate immune activation due to virus infusion; (ii) direct oncolytic and/or immune-mediated destruction of OV infected tumor cells due to intratumoral spread of the virus infection; (iii) collateral boosting of tumor antigen-specific T cell responses that target uninfected tumor cells. We investigated the relative contributions of these 3 factors T cell lymphoma (TCL) patients (pts) responding to a single intravenous infusion of Voyager-V1, an oncolytic vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) encoding IFNβ and sodium iodide symporter (NIS) on NCT03017820. Of relevance, the virally encoded IFNβ enhances tumor specificity, boosts proinflammatory activity & serves as a convenient serum biomarker of infection. Methods: In a first in human trial, a single infusion of Voyager-V1 was administered to 15 pts with relapsed refractory hematologic cancers; 4 dose levels (DL) were tested (5x10 9, 1.7x10 10, 5x10 10, 1.7x10 11 TCID50); 7 pts had TCL. Cytokine levels and CRS symptoms were determined as a measure of generalized immune activation; serum IFNβ levels were monitored as a pharmacodynamic biomarker of virus infection; antitumor T cell responses were measured using ELISPOT assays. Results: Of 8 TCL pts, 3 had RECIST responses: PR at DL 2, a CR & PR at DL 4. Most pts experience short lived CRS typically resolving within 24 hours of virus infusion. Serum IFNβ levels increased post-therapy in all pts, typically peaking by 24 hours post virus infusion and returning to baseline by median day 10. T cell responses could not be accurately determined in most cases due to suboptimal T cell viability and/or function after thawing of frozen PBMC. Factors contributing to tumor regression in each of the responding pts appeared to differ significantly, as exemplified by the case reports below. Pt (I) with CTCL experienced grade 1 CRS followed by brisk regression of multiple cutaneous lesions. The PR lasted 3 mo, after relapse of an eye lesion, but responses at other sites deepened after the relapsed lesion was irradiated; pt remained off active therapy for the next 2 yrs. Peak serum IFNβ 4 hours post infusion was only 182 pg/ml suggesting that disease response may have been driven by nonspecific innate immune activation associated with the virus infusion. Pt (IV) (CD30+ PTCL/ cutaneous relapse) had short lived grade 2 CRS, then developed signs of IFNβ toxicity with AST elevation and thrombocytopenia. Oral ruxolitinib was administered for 5 days as IFNβ toxicity mitigation leading to normalization of AST and platelets. All PET-avid tumors regressed completely. This CR continues 16 months post virus infusion. Peak serum IFNβ was 18,213 pg/ml strongly suggesting that response was driven by extensive intratumoral amplification of the virus and oncolytic tumor destruction. Robust CTL responses to tumor neoantigens were detected in this pt at baseline indicating that collateral boosting of tumor-specific T cells may have been responsible for the long term maintenance of this CR Pt (V) (CD30+ PTCL) had short lived grade 2 CRS followed by response at all disease sites (including complete normalization of an enlarged FDG-avid spleen). Her PR ended after 6 months due to relapse in cervical lymph nodes. Peak serum IFNβ level was modest, 600 pg/ml & sustained over 48 hours suggesting slower intratumoral spread of the virus infection. The deepening of the response long after resolution of the oncolytic phase points strongly to a contribution from antitumor CTL but the assay was technically unsatisfactory in this pt. Conclusion: Analysis of the correlative data supports that intravenous Voyager-V1 therapy can recruit diverse antitumor effector mechanisms to impact tumor response in pts with heavily pretreated TCL. Importantly, intratumoral virus amplification, which results in high circulating concentrations of IFNβ, does not necessarily lead to tumor regression perhaps because of defective immune cell recruitment and/or activation in some tumors but not in others. This will be further evaluated in future study participants by performing CTL assays on fresh, rather than frozen PBMC. In conclusion, a single IV infusion of Voyager-V1 shows highly promising activity against treatment refractory TCL and should be further advanced as a new single-shot or combination therapy for this therapeutically challenging indication. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Patnaik: StemLine: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Bennani: Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Gertz: Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board. Dingli: Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy. Kumar: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tenebio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, 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; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Bergsagel: Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kapoor: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Lin: Sorrento: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: VSV-IFNβ-NIS is an oncolytic virus in clinical trial for systemic administration in hematologic malignancies

Abstract Background: Advances in supportive care and novel therapies have driven improved outcomes for patients with Multiple myeloma (MM) and Light Chain Amyloidosis (AL). Unfortunately, this progress demands a heavy toll - higher patient costs. Financial toxicity (FT) is the adverse impact of cancer on a patient's financial well-being, contributing to increased distress, lower medication compliance, and even reduced survival. We aimed to evaluate MM and AL patients for financial toxicity over time to better understand its impact on various quality of life (QOL) domains. Methods: Adult patients with MM or AL that receive care at Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN, were recruited for a prospective study between December 2019 and March 2021. FT was measured using the validated COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) questionnaire at the time of enrollment, 3 months, and 6 months follow-up. COST scores range from 0-44, with higher scores indicating lower FT. We defined patients with a COST score of ≤ 23 as having substantial FT. Domains of QOL were assessed via the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-29 survey. Patient demographics and clinical information were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Statistical analysis included a comparison of COST scores among groups through Wilcoxon rank-sum, Kruskal-Wallis, and Jonckheere-Terpestra tests for binary, unordered, and ordered categorical variables, respectively. Results: One hundred and sixteen patients (96 MM, 83%; AL 20, 17%) enrolled in this study. The cohort is characterized as follows: 49% age 65+ (51% age 35-64), 54% male, 93% White, 4.3% Black, 3.5% Hispanic, 44% with incomes > USD 75k/yr (26% < USD 50k/yr), 77% with at least some college education (32% graduate or doctoral degree), 52% insured through Medicare (4.3% through Medicaid), 36% employed (53% retired), and 71% married (16% divorced). Forty-three percent of patients enrolled in the study were newly diagnosed (56% relapsed), and 72% had received an autologous stem cell transplant. Baseline mean COST score was25.9 (N=116; SD 10.2), with 37% reporting FT. A total of 101 patients (85 MM; 16 AL) completed a baseline and either 3- or 6-month COST survey. Thirty-eight of these patients (38%) reported FT at the time of enrollment. Among those reporting baseline FT, 71% continued to report FT at 3 or 6 months; 29% showed reduced FT. Of the 62% of patients who reported low FT at baseline, 78% showed continued low FT at 3 or 6 months; 22% showed increased FT. Results of longitudinal follow-up are outlined in Figure 1. FT was significantly associated with increased anxiety, depression, and pain intensity domains on the PROMIS-29. Substantial FT was associated with: women, Medicaid as primary insurance, and being divorced. FT was also greater in unemployed/disabled vs retired individuals. Conversely, low FT was associated with: males, earning > USD 75k/yr, Medicare as primary insurance, having at least some college education, being retired, and traveling 300+ miles for care. Financial toxicity did not differ significantly by age, race, ethnicity, disease status (newly diagnosed vs relapsed), or transplant status. Discussion : Financial toxicity was present in more than one-third of AL and MM patients in this high-earning and well-educated cohort. Financial toxicity was associated with increased anxiety, depression, and pain intensity, contributing to lower patient quality of life. Longitudinal follow-up has shown financial toxicity to be dynamic, necessitating routine evaluation of patient financial burdens. Future work will focus on automating FT assessment with incorporation into routine care and developing care processes to support patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Interferon-alpha (IFN), the first approved immunotherapy for cancer, remains an effective therapy for patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). The mechanisms of action of IFN on MPN cells are poorly understood, particularly in patients with CALR mutated (MUT) MPNs, who often exhibit clinical but not molecular responses. Previously, by developing Genotyping of Transcriptomes (GoT) that captures mutation status and single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) in high-throughput, we observed that CALR mutations led to cell identity-dependent effects on CD34 + cells, including a strong megakaryocytic progenitor (MkP) differentiation bias and fitness. We hypothesized that the IFN effects may be cell identity and mutation status dependent; thus we applied GoT to serial bone marrow aspirates (BM) from 5 patients with CALRmutated ET treated with pegylated-IFN-alfa2a who participated in MPD-RC-111/112 clinical trials. To capture the transcriptional impact of IFN, we removed experimental batch effects with Cell Hashing, in which CD34 + cells from serial BM were uniquely labeled and combined for the same GoT experiment (Fig. 1A). Cell clustering based on transcriptomic data alone revealed that the cells on active treatment clustered based on cell identity and IFN effects (Fig. 1B). When off therapy for 3 weeks, the strong transcriptional effects of IFN were largely lost (Fig. 1B). Next, we batch corrected and integrated across time points for each BM sample (Fig. 1C). We observed that IFN caused large shifts in the composition of wildtype (WT) and MUT cell subsets (Fig. 1D). IFN resulted in a dramatic expansion of WT lymphoid progenitors with a corresponding diminution of other progenitors (Fig. 1E). MUT cells at baseline were enriched for MkPs, compared to WT cells; after treatment, we observed an expansion of the immature myeloid (IMP) and neutrophil progenitors, with a less striking expansion of lymphoid progenitors (Fig. 1E). As IFN has been reported to induce cell cycling of murine hematopoietic progenitor cells, we examined whether a differential increase in proliferation by IFN underlies the differentiation shifts in WT and MUT cells. Cell cycle gene expression of ProB cells increased after treatment similarly in MUT and WT cells, while cell cycle expression of IMPs was increased to a greater extent in MUT cells (Fig. 1F), consistent with the differential shifts in populations. Next, we performed differential expression analysis between baseline and treated WT and MUT cells, respectively. We observed enrichment of the IFN pathways post-therapy, whereas TNF-a signaling was downregulated (Fig. 1G). Uniquely in the MUT cells, TGF-b signaling was downregulated, which may underlie improvements in marrow fibrosis following IFN therapy (Fig. 1G). Finally, as the differentiation biases of IFN persisted after discontinuation, we hypothesized that IFN results in chromatin remodeling of the earliest hematopoietic stem progenitor cells (HSPCs), with respect to transcription factor (TF) accessibility. We leveraged single nuclei chromatin accessibility (snATAC-seq) as a powerful measure of TF regulatory activities. We developed GoT-ATAC, an adaptation of the Multiome platform (10x Genomics), to capture snRNA-seq, snATAC-seq and somatic genotyping within the same cells in high-throughput (Fig. 1H). We applied GoT-ATAC to CD34 + cells from the same clinical trial cohorts (Fig. 1I, n = 3 patients: 3 baseline, 2 treated) and identified the expected enrichment of IRFs and STAT2 in treated HSPCs (Fig. 1J). Accessibility of BCL11A, critical for early lymphoid development, was increased in treated MUT and WT HSPCs. We also identified enhanced motif accessibility of PU.1 which can associate with IRF and is essential for myeloid and lymphoid differentiation. Uniquely within the treated MUT cells, we observed enhanced CEBPA motif enrichment, which regulates myeloid differentiation, together with PU.1. In conclusion, GoT revealed that IFN reshapes the differentiation landscape by promoting early lymphoid development and, uniquely in MUT cells, myeloid differentiation, providing a novel mechanism of actions underlying the effects of IFN in MPN patients. Downregulations of TNF-a and TGF-b signaling were other key molecular consequences of IFN. Lastly, GoT-ATAC demonstrated that IFN governs master regulators of hematopoietic differentiation as a function of the underlying mutational status. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mimitou: Immunai: Current Employment. Smibert: Immunai: Current Employment. Hoffman: AbbVie Inc.: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy; Kartos Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding.

349527 Background: Symptoms are common during cancer care but often go undetected. Digital systems that elicit patient-reported outcomes (PRO) surveys may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene, thereby alleviating suffering and averting complications. Methods: In a cluster-randomized trial, U.S.-based community oncology practices were randomized 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring with PRO surveys, or to usual care control. Patients receiving systemic treatment for metastatic cancer were eligible. At PRO practices, participants were invited to complete a weekly survey via web or automated telephone system for up to one year, including questions about nine common symptoms, performance status, and falls. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered electronic alerts to care team nurses, and reports showing longitudinal symptom data were available to oncologists at visits. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included impact on physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). The primary outcome of survival is not yet mature. Results: At 52 practices, 1,191 patients were eligible and enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control). Clinically meaningful benefits were experienced in physical function by 13.8% more patients with PRO versus control (P=0.009); symptom control by 16.1% (P=0.003); and HRQL by 13.4% (P=0.006). Mean changes from baseline were superior with PRO versus control for physical function (mean difference 2.47, 95% CI 0.41-4.53; P=0.02), symptom control (2.56, 0.95-4.17; P=0.002), and HRQL (2.43, 0.90-3.96; P=0.002). Patients completed 20,565/22,486 (91.5%) of expected weekly PRO surveys. Conclusions: Digital symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers clinical benefits. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090.