Citations

Abstract Background: The myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), including essential thrombocythemia (ET), polycythemia vera (PV) and myelofibrosis (MF) can be characterized by heterogeneous symptoms, disease features, and prognosis. Timely monitoring of blood counts and if needed, referral for discussion of stem cell transplant (SCT), are critical to optimizing survival and quality of life. In connection with the MPN SCT Transplantation Timing Taskforce's (MS3T's) work in developing the DIPPS-based Stem Cell Spectrum Timing Tool, the survey was deployed to explore factors contributing to delayed entry to SCT. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for MPNs strongly recommend referral to specialized centers with expertise in the management of MPNs (Mesa et. al. 2017). To date, efforts to assess the timing and quality of MPN patient care from the patient's perspective have been minimal. Methods: Patients were recruited from MPN-related Facebook pages, subscribers of MPNforum Magazine and E-mail support groups including the MPN-NET, MPDchat, and the MPN Research Foundation. Hematologists, MPN patients, and advocates constructed the 11-item survey questions and content. The survey was available for patient response between July 4-11th2018. Patients were queried on MPN type, time of diagnosis, and details regarding knowledge of their MPN disease features and care. Data: Demographics.Overall 2382 MPN patients responded to the online survey. Of these, 901 (38%) patients had ET, 865 (36%) had PV, 561 (24%) had MF, 41 (2%) had MPN-unclassifiable or MPN/MDS overlap and 15 (1%) did not respond. Among MF patients, 56% reported having primary MF, 42% secondary MF, 1% prefibrotic MF, and 1% reported having already undergone SCT (1% did not specify type of MF or transplant). The majority of patients were diagnosed with their MPN by a hematology/oncology (77.8%) or family practice (15 %) physician. MPN Care provider and monitoring: Out of all respondents, 35% reported being cared for by an MPN specialist, 36% were not cared for by an MPN specialist and 27% were unsure if their provider was an MPN specialist. Overall less than half (42%) of patients reported having sought a second opinion from an MPN specialist. The majority (87%) of participants knew their mutational status relating to the highly publicized and widely tested JAK2 V617F mutation (73.8%) and CALR (10.2%). However, a statistically insignificant number of patients had any idea of other driving and secondary mutations including MPL, EZH2, SRSF2, IDH1/2 or ASLX-1. Blood counts were reviewed by a hematologist for the majority of patients (93% responded "yes", 4% responded "sometimes", 3% responded "no"). SCT Referral: Among ET and PV, <1% of patients reported being referred to SCT. For MF, 34% of participants reported having been referred for SCT discussion (30% for primary MF and 28% for secondary MF). Conclusions: MPN patients often report receiving care outside of the care of an MPN specialist. Additionally, despite the poor outcomes and higher likelihood of progression to AML, less than a third of patients with secondary MF report being referred for SCT discussion. Independent validation of patient responses, particularly in regards to MPN specialized care and timing of transplant discussion should be investigated further. However, these patient responses suggest many patients may be receiving less than optimal MPN care. These results demonstrate the importance of community hematology/oncology physician and patient education regarding optimal MPN care. Disclosures Mesa: UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Palmer:Novartis: Research Funding. Harrison:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Verstovsek:Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Scherber:Gilead: Honoraria.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) suffer from difficult MPN associated symptoms which impact quality of life (QoL). The impact of initial cytoreduction on ET/PV symptoms, resulting toxicity and QoL have not been prospectively studied. Methods: MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) randomized 168 therapy-naive (hydroxyurea [HU] <3 mo) high risk ET/PV pts (<5 years of disease) to response adjusted pegylated interferon alpha 2a (PEG) or HU. MPN symptoms, in depth toxicity assessment, and QoL were measured by two symptom instruments (MPN-SAF, EORTC QLQ-C30: baseline,3, 6, 9, and 12 mo) and toxicity questions. Blinded response review by European Leukemia Net (ELN) hematological responses (HR) was conducted at 12 months. Individual time point and longitudinal group comparisons were based on mixed models adjusting for age. Results: Patients: Of 168 randomized pts (86 HU, 82 PEG), 164 (98%) completed the survey package at baseline and 151 (HU 83%; PEG 98%) completed at least 1 survey during treatment. Median age was 61 (range 18-87) with 70 (42%) females; 81 (48%) / 87 (52%) with ET / PV; 46 (27%) had a history of a thrombosis. 119 (71%) received prior HU (up to 3 months). Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms with the exception of age (median HU 63 vs. PEG 60 yrs; p=0.02). Baseline Symptom Burden /QoL: Mean MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS), scale 0 [absent]-100 [worst imaginable] was 15.8 (SD 12.6; range 0-62.0) with means of 15.1 (SD 12.6) / 16.5 (SD 12.6) for ET / PV which were slightly lower than reported means of a previous cohort receiving any line of treatment (Scherber RM, JCO 2012). Median number of moderate (defined as score >=3) symptoms in ET patients was 3.0 and PV 4.0. Most common moderate symptoms were fatigue (65.9%), insomnia (37.2%), numbness (33.5%) , itching (29.9%), dizziness (27.4%), early satiety (26.8%) , headache (23.2%), sad mood (23.2%), inactivity (22%), concentration (20.7%). 50.6% of patients had one or more symptom with a score >=6. Mean QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL (GHS/QoL) was 70.8 (SD 21.9) - comparable to a general population (mean 71.2, SD 22.4) and better than a general cancer population (mean 61.3, SD 24.2; QLQ-C30 Reference Manual 2008). At baseline, TSS, symptoms, and QoL were similar between treatment arms. In patients with TSS >20 at baseline (highly symptomatic, n=50; ET:20, PV:30), median TSS was 28.0 (range 20.0 to 62.0); the highest scored symptom was fatigue (median=7.0), itching (median=4.5) and insomnia (median=4.0). Impact of Therapy on Symptom Burden/QoL: On HU, pts experienced worsening QoL (physical, cognitive functioning, HRQoL) and some persistent or transient worsened symptoms (inactivity, concentration (p<0.05) (Table 1)). On PEG, pts experienced worsening of fever, dyspnea, appetite loss and PEG-related symptoms including flu-like symptoms, injection site irritation, blurry vision, and visual changes (all p<0.05), but not sad mood (not corrected for antidepressants). In comparing arms, change in TSS significantly differed (p=0.01) between arms with increasing symptoms on HU vs PEG at 3 and 6 mo, but lower symptom burden at 9 and 12 mos (Figure 1). In highly symptomatic pts (with a baseline TSS > 20, n=50), improvements in weight loss, abdominal discomfort, fatigue, itching, fever, early satiety (12 m.) were observed in pts on HU. For PEG, in highly symptomatic pts, improvements were observed for overall TSS score, fatigue, inactivity, night sweats, and itching (with similar toxicities to all PEG patients). ELN Response and Symptom Burden/QoL: Among the 133 pts with 12-mo symptom data, complete hematologic response (CHR) rate was 43%. Inactivity and sad mood were worse in those patient achieving a CHR (inactivity: CHR worsening 0.68 vs PHR/NR better 0.26; p=0.03; sad mood: CHR worsening 0.67 vs PHR/NR better 0.67, p=0.002)). These latter changes were not related to higher doses utilized (in either arm), suggesting obtaining CHR may have negative effects on patient symptoms. Conclusions:In pts with a significant baseline MPN symptom burden, cytoreductive therapy has both a beneficial impact on baseline MPN symptom burden but also leads to therapy associated toxicity, although different patterns of efficacy and toxicity between HU and PEG. Achievement of a CHR in PV/ET may be associated with higher rates of drug related toxicities, and the value of achieving CHR may need further validation. Disclosures Mesa: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Merck: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: 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; Roche: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Rambaldi:Omeros: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Consultancy; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy. Yacoub:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Cara Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Ardelyx, INC.: Equity Ownership; Inycte: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Dynavax: Equity Ownership. Harrison:Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: 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. Mead:Elstar: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Evotek: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Kessler:Sangamo: Research Funding; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dimension Advisory boards: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DSMB: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Biomarin: Research Funding. Kremyanskaya:Incyte: Research Funding. Rampal:Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Stemline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Hoffman:Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Formation Biologics: Research Funding; Summer Road: Research Funding. Dueck:Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment.

Abstract Introduction HU is the treatment of choice for patients (pts) with high risk ET/PV, however, PEG has been proposed as an alternative option due to its proposed potential to modify disease course. An interim analysis of MPN-RC 112 (Blood 2016 128:479;) did not reveal a difference in PR/CR rates between HU and PEG therapy after 12 months in the first evaluable 75 pts treated. Here we present the results and long-term follow-up of all pts participating in this pivotal study [NCT01259856]. Methods MPN-RC 112 was a randomized, open label, phase 3 clinical trial comparing HU and PEG in pts with high risk ET/PV. Pts were treated for up to 12 months to achieve PR or CR (ELN/IWG-MRT response criteria). Pts who achieved a PR/CR continued therapy for up to a maximum of 6 years. Minimum follow up was 1 year from the time the last pt was randomized. The primary objective was to compare the CR rate following HU vs. PEG at 12 months with 3 month confirmation. Secondary objectives included a comparison of toxicity and tolerability; PR rates; incidence of specific pre-defined toxicities and tolerance to therapy; impact of therapy on key biomarkers; survival and incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome, myelofibrosis, or leukemic transformation; and incidence of major cardiovascular events. Bone marrow pathologic responses were evaluated by central blinded expert review at baseline, 12, 24 months and end of study. Results The study accrued 168 pts; 86 were randomized to HU and 82 to PEG. A summary of pt baseline characteristics by treatment arm is shown in Table 1 and were well balanced between the treatment arms except for median age which was higher in the HU arm (p=0.02). Median duration of follow up was 89.9 weeks (range, 0 to 292.3) and the median treatment duration was 86.0 weeks (range, 0 to 287.3). At 12 months, the overall response rate (ORR= PR+CR) was 69.8% and 78% for HU and PEG, respectively (p=0.22). Figure 1 shows the distribution of responses stratified by disease type. At 24 months, 59 pts were on treatment with an ORR of 22/25 (88%) for HU and 31/34 (91%) for PEG. When considering all 106 pts who were eligible to receive treatment for 24 months (due to study closure), the ORR was 22/54 (40.7%, PR: 11 (20.4%), CR: 11 (20.4%)) for HU and 31/52 (59.6%, (PR: 15 (28.9%), CR: 16 (30.8%)) for PEG, p=0.04. Best ORR at any time on study was seen in 70.9% and 81.7% of HU and PEG treated pts, respectively, p=0.10. The median maximum change from baseline spleen volume was -6% (-100.0 - +53.8) in 112 evaluable pts and was similar between arms, p=0.99. Bone marrow morphologic responses are shown in Table 2 and the best response (CR) seen at any time on study for ET treated with HU was 52% (12/23) vs PEG 32% (8/25) and for PV treated with HU 19% (6/31) vs PEG 6% (2/34). Cytogenetic analyses at diagnosis were available in 86% (144/168). An abnormal karyotype was seen in 15% (22/144). Five PV and one ET pt lost their chromosomal abnormalities: 3 after one year (HU=1, PEG=2) and three after two years of therapy (HU=2, PEG=1). AE information is available for 162 pts (HU: 80; PEG: 82) (Table 3). Six pts randomized to HU never received treatment due to study withdrawal prior to initiation of treatment. Sixty pts had a grade 3 or higher event [HU: 22 (27.5%) and PEG: 38 (46.3%)]. 28 PV pts had a grade 3/4 [HU: 10 (24.4%) and PEG: 18 (41.9%)]. Four pts had a grade 4/5 event [HU: 3 (7.3%) and PEG: 1 (2.3%)]. 32 ET pts had a grade 3/4 [HU:12 (30.8%) and PEG:20 (51.3%)]. Two pts had a grade 4/5 event [HU:1 (2.6%), PEG:1 (2.6%)]. Additional outcomes of interest on study include one death attributed to new diagnosis of lung cancer (HU:1), progression to myelofibrosis (HU:1), vertebral artery occlusion (HU:1), and cerebral vascular accident (PEG:1). Reasons for study discontinuation are shown in Table 4. The effect of therapy on symptom burden and quality of life will be presented in a companion abstract (Mesa et al). The impact of mutation status on therapeutic outcome as well as the molecular responses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion The final analysis of MPN-RC 112 revealed that the CR rates in pts with high risk ET/PV treated with PEG and HU at 12 and 24 months were similar. PEG was associated with a higher rate of grade 3/4 toxicity. Each drug appeared equally capable of modifying the natural history of high risk ET/PV based upon their effects on spleen size, karyotypic abnormalities, histopathological parameters and the low incidence of thrombotic complications and disease evolution in both arms. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Novartis: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Rambaldi:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Harrison:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: 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. Mead:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Elstar: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy; Evotek: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy. Kessler:Genentech: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biomarin: Research Funding; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DSMB: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dimension Advisory boards: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kremyanskaya:Incyte: Research Funding. Rampal:Stemline: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Mesa:CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. Dueck:Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment. Hoffman:Incyte: Research Funding; Formation Biologics: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Summer Road: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 2818 Background: Pegylated interferon alpha-2a (Peg INF2a) has been demonstrated to be active therapy for high-risk essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV), as well as treatment for early myelofibrosis (MF). We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of Peg INF2a therapy in MPN patients treated outside the constraints of a clinical trial in the USA and EU. Methods: Clinical records of MPN patients treated at the participating centers, receiving Peg INF2a outside of the context of a clinical trial, were analyzed for response (ET and PV by ELN criteria; MF by EUNMET and IWG-MRT criteria), toxicity, and duration of response. Results: Patients: 115 patients were identified (54 PV (47%), 44 ET (38%), 17 MF (15%)) with a median age at diagnosis (48) and gender distribution (59% females) typical for the disorders. The patients had been diagnosed with the MPN a median of 44 months (0.0–312 months) prior to initiation of the Peg IFN2a and 64% harbored the JAK2-V617F mutation. The majority of patients (81%) had received at least one prior cytoreductive therapy for their disease (73 hydroxyurea, 39 anagrelide, 37 aspirin, 21 prior interferon (non pegylated), 3 phlebotomy alone). Therapy: Median starting dose of Peg INF2a was 45 micrograms/week (range: 22.5–180) with peak starting doses ranging from 30 to 300 micrograms/week. A total of 84 patients (73%) remain on Peg IFN2a with median duration of treatment of 17 months (range: 1.0–92). Toxicity: Overall the Peg INF2a was well tolerated. Hematological toxicity was Gr 3 or lower. There were 6 cases with anemia (5%), 10 with thrombocytopenia (9%) and 8 had leukopenia (7%). Most common non-hematologic toxicities were Gr 1–3 fatigue in 27 (23%), Gr 1 LFT elevation in 6 (5%), Gr 2–3 skin/allergic reaction in 6 (5%), Gr 1–2 nausea in 5 (4%), and Gr 2 mood disorder in 5 (4%) patients. Twenty patients (17%) discontinued therapy secondary to toxicity. Response: ET-PV: By ELN criteria, 30 PV patients achieved CR (55%), 17 achieved PR (31%), 4 achieved NR (7%), and 3 patients (5%) were lost to follow up or were too early to evaluate for response. In ET, the responses were CR in 27 (61%), PR in 7 (16%), NR in 4 (9%), and 6 patients (14%) were lost to follow up or were too early to evaluate for response. MF: The responses by IWG criteria were 1 CR (6%), 2 PR (12%), 2 CI (12%) and 9 SD (53%). By EUNMET, there were 2 CR (12%), 4 major responses (24%), 4 moderate responses (24%), 1 minor response (6%), 2 no response (12%), and 3 patients (17%) were lost to follow up or were too early to evaluate for response. Conclusions: Peg INF2a used at doses consistent with published clinical trials is active and well-tolerated when administered in a clinical setting outside of the support of a clinical trial. Given the majority of patients had previously failed cytoreductive therapy these results substantiate prior reports of efficacy of Peg INF2a in MPNs. Upcoming randomized clinical trials through the Myeloproliferative Disorders Research Consortium will help further define the role of Peg INF2a as first line therapy in high-risk MPNs. Disclosures: Mesa: Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; SBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Severe anemia with RBC-transfusion-dependence is common in persons with advanced MPN-associated myelofibrosis. Pomalidomide, an immune-modulating drug with pleiotrophic bone marrow effects, improved anemia in several phase 2 studies. Method Phase 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pomalidomide (0.5 mg/d) in subjects with MPN-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion-dependence. The primary endpoint was RBC-transfusion-independence. Criteria for RBC-transfusion-dependence and -independence were based on results of an expert consensus panel RAND-Delphi study. Subjects 252 subjects were randomized 2:1 to receive pomalidomide or placebo with stratifications for age, type of myelofibrosis, and intensity of RBC-transfusions. Median age was 70 y. 75% had primary myelofibrosis. Median units (U) RBC-transfusions/28 d pre-randomization was 3 (range, 2-13). Results Response rates in the cohorts were similar (16% [95% CI, 11-23%] vs 16% [8-26%]), as were response durations. However, median time to response for pomalidomide was 7 w (range, 0-20 w) vs only 2 w (range, 0-15 w) for placebo (p=0.22). Response in both cohorts was more common in subjects with ≤4 vs >4 U RBC/28 d pre-randomization (OR=3.1 [p=0.09] and OR=8.6 [p=0.06]). However, other variables associated with response to pomalidomide: age ≤65 vs >65 y (OR=2.4; p=0.07) and primary myelofibrosis vs other (OR=2.6; p=0.14) and response to placebo: (WBC >25 vs ≤25 x10E9/L; OR=5.0; p=0.08) and interval from diagnosis to randomization >2 vs ≤2 y (OR=5.0; p=0.04) differed. These differences would not be expected were response to pomalidomide identical to response to placebo. Also, a center effect was found in placebo but not pomalidomide responders, which persisted after adjusting for predictive associations. Several pomalidomide responders lost response when therapy was stopped but regained it when pomalidomide was re-started. No pre-randomization therapy (iron-chelation, hydroxyurea, busulfan, folate) was consistently correlated with response to placebo, and durations of RBC-transfusion-dependence pre-randomization were similar between the cohorts. In contrast, platelet response rates, a 2̍° endpoint, were significantly different between the cohorts: pomalidomide, 22% (95% CI, 11-35%) vsplacebo, 0 (0-12%; p=0.006). Platelet response was not correlated with RBC-transfusion-independence response. Conclusion There was no significant difference in rate or duration of RBC-transfusion-independence response to pomalidomide vsplacebo despite using what were thought to be sensitive and specific entry- and response-criteria. Unexpectedly, however, most variables associated with response to pomalidomide and placebo differed between the cohorts, as did distribution of times to response. These data suggest responses to pomalidomide and placebo differ but were not distinguished by our response-criteria. Pomalidomide appears to reverse RBC transfusion dependence in some persons with MPN associated MF. However, additional research designs are needed to study this impression. This abstract is presented on behalf of all RESUME Investigators. Study registration: NCT01178281. Disclosures: Cervantes: Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gisslinger:AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria; Novartis: Advisory Board Meeting, Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Advisory Board Meeting, Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria; Shire: Advisory Board Meeting, Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria; Celgene: Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria; Janssen: Advisory Board Meeting, Advisory Board Meeting Other, Honoraria. Gupta:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Grant support through institution Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Grant support through institution, Grant support through institution Other, Honoraria. Harrison:SBio: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; YM Bioscience: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Schiller:Celgene: Research Funding. Mesa:Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

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 Abstract 2702 Introduction/Background Tumor Lysis Syndrome (TLS) is a potentially life-threatening metabolic syndrome that frequently complicates the management of newly diagnosed mature B-NHL in children and adults (Cairo et al., BJH 2010). We have demonstrated rasburicase to be superior to allopurinol in the rapid reduction of uric acid (UA). (Goldman/Cairo et al, Blood 2001) In the previous FAB/LMB/96 international mature B-NHL trial, variables associated with a significant inferior EFS included advanced stage, elevated LDH, primary mediastinal involvement (PMBL) and combined BM/CNS disease (Cairo et al, JCO, 2011). We have previously reported the pharmacokinetics and safety of the addition of rituximab to a modified FAB/LMB/96 backbone in children and adolescents with advanced stage mature de-novo B-NHL. (Cairo et al., ASCO, 2010) Here we focus on outcome in those specific high-risk sub-categories of advanced childhood mature B-NHL following the incorporation of a recombinant urate oxidase (Rasburicase) and targeted immunotherapy (Rituximab) to the FAB/LMB/96 chemotherapy backbones. Material and Methods Children with newly diagnosed stage III/IV or high-risk (BM+±CNS+) de-novo mature B-NHL were prospectively treated with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (COP) reduction therapy preceded by 4–24 hours of non-alkaline hydration and rasburicase (0.2mg/kg) (generously supplied by Sanofi-Aventis). Laboratory and clinical TLS (LTLS and CTLS) was prospectively monitored as previously defined (Cairo & Bishop, BJH, 2004). Immunochemotherapy consisted of FAB B4 or C1 therapy (adriamycin 1 hr infusion) as we have previously described (Patte et al and Cairo et al, Blood, 2007) with the addition of rituximab 375 mg/m2/dose (generously supplied by Genentech) with 2 doses administered in each induction cycle and 1 dose in each consolidation cycle. Results With respect to LTLS and CTLS, 78 patients were evaluable: group B (stage III/IV) with NL-LDH (<2X ULN, n=23), Group B with HI-LDH (≥ 2X ULN, n=18), and Group C (n=37). The mean initial UA levels (mg/dl +/− SD) were 4.7±2, 8.7±4.6, and 7.1±4.6, respectively. At presentation, 31% of patients (all groups) had an elevated (> 8mg/dl) UA, and 47% received elective doses of rasburicase in the days prior to the first day of chemotherapy. The incidence of LTLS prior to rasburicase in Group B NL-LDH, Group B HI-LDH, and Group C, was 4.3%, 5.5%, and 16.6%, respectively. The incidence of CTLS prior to rasburicase was 0%, 11%, and 8.6%, respectively. Following the administration of rasburicase, the incidence of new onset LTLS and CTLS for the entire cohort was 13% (2.6% with hyperuricemia) and 4% (1% with hyperuricemia), respectively. Furthermore, there was a significant improvement in the estimated GFR in those with renal impairment from day -1 prior to rasbursicase to day+7 post R-COP (55 ± 29 ml/min1.73 m2 to 136 ± 29 respectively; p<0.0007; Figure 1). Following combined FAB 96 chemotherapy (with 1 hour Adriamycin) and rituximab, the 3- year EFS (95% CI) for pilot patients (6 doses of rituximab) with Stage III/IV and Group C BM/CNS patients were 95% (80–99%) (Figure 2) and 89% (73–98%), respectively. Interestingly, two of four patients with centrally reviewed mediastinal primaries developed recurrent disease, while none of the 19 stage III/IV patients with LDH < 2X ULN developed recurrent disease or toxic deaths. Conclusions Rasburicase and non-alkaline hydration largely prevented (94% of the time) new onset TLS with hyperuricemia safely during COP reduction therapy in children with advanced stages of de-novo mature B-NHL. For patients with mediastinal primaries, the high failure rate with group B4 therapy + rituximab suggests it would be appropriate to investigate new treatment strategies. Excluding this histology, combined modified FAB/LMB 96 chemotherapy and rituximab resulted in only 5 deaths (2 toxic deaths, 3 disease related deaths) among our cohort of 62 with advanced mature B-NHL. In comparing these current results from the previous FAB/LMB 96 trial without rituximab, the stage III/IV patients had a 95% vs. 84% and patients with CNS+ disease a 93% vs. 72% 3 year EFS. (Patte et al., Cairo et al. Blood, 2007) Future efforts to intensify chemotherapy in patients with CNS involvement should proceed only with careful toxicity monitoring, as preliminarily these patients seem to have excellent outcome with this immunochemotherapy approach. Disclosures: Gross: Pfizer Oncology: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Eli Lilly: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 1753 Background: Ruxolitinib (INC424), a potent and selective oral JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor, has demonstrated rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly and improved disease-related symptoms, role functioning, and quality of life (QoL) in 2 phase 3 studies in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) (the COMFORT studies). These studies compared ruxolitinib with either placebo or best available therapy (BAT). This analysis compares the efficacy outcomes between the placebo arm from COMFORT-I and the BAT arm from COMFORT-II. Methods: COMFORT-I is a randomized (1:1), double-blind, multicenter study comparing ruxolitinib 15 or 20 mg twice daily (bid) with placebo, and COMFORT-II is a randomized (2:1), open-label, multicenter study comparing ruxolitinib 15 or 20 mg bid with BAT (investigator-selected therapy, including no treatment). Both studies met their primary end points with statistical significance (ruxolitinib vs control): the percentage of patients achieving ≥35% reduction in spleen volume at week 24 (COMFORT-I, P <.0001) and week 48 (COMFORT-II, P <.0001). QoL was measured using patient responses with the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Questionnaire–Core 30 (QLQ-C30) as an exploratory end point in both studies. Results: In the COMFORT-I and COMFORT-II studies, 154 patients received placebo (ruxolitinib, n=155) and 73 patients received BAT (ruxolitinib, n=146), respectively, and were included in the primary efficacy analyses. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the control arms of the 2 studies, including spleen size below the costal margin (mean [standard deviation, SD] 16.4 [6.27] cm and 15.8 [6.71] cm in placebo and BAT, respectively). Only 1 patient (0.7%) who received placebo and no patients who received BAT had a ≥35% reduction in spleen volume from baseline at week 24. The median spleen volume increased from baseline at week 24 in both the placebo and BAT groups and was numerically similar (placebo, 8.5% [range, −46.4% to 48.8%]; BAT, 5.1% [range, −33.3% to 29.7%]). In contrast, patients who received ruxolitinib had median reductions in spleen volume from baseline at week 24 of −33.0% (COMFORT-I) and −27.5% (COMFORT-II). The QLQ-C30 provides a measurement of change in QoL and MF-related symptoms, including fatigue, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, and appetite loss. At 24 weeks, neither the placebo nor BAT arms had clinically meaningful changes from baseline (10 points [Osoba et al. J Clin Oncol. 1998]) in any of the QoL (decreases indicate worsening) or symptom scores (increases indicate worsening) (Table). Although differences existed between the placebo and BAT arms, the SDs are large, thus complicating comparisons between the 2 groups. Conclusions: In the COMFORT studies, ruxolitinib demonstrated significantly greater reductions in spleen size compared with placebo or BAT. This post hoc analysis of the 2 studies shows that patients who received BAT in the COMFORT-II study had similar symptom and QoL responses and numerically similar increases in spleen size as those who received placebo in the COMFORT-I study. No clinically meaningful improvements in QoL or symptoms were seen on either the placebo or BAT arms. These new data strongly suggest that current therapies for MF provide little improvement in spleen size, symptoms, or QoL as compared with placebo. Disclosures: Mesa: Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; SBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Cervantes:Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Waltzman:Novartis: Employment. Mendelson:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Martin:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Sun:Incyte: Employment. Sandor:Incyte: Employment. Levy:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Harrison:Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; S*Bio: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria.

Abstract Background Fedratinib (SAR302503) is a JAK2-selective inhibitor that has provided clinically meaningful reductions in MF-associated splenomegaly and symptoms in Phase I and II studies (J Clin Oncol 2011;29:789. Haematologica 2013;98:S1113). Here, we present efficacy and safety data from the Phase III JAKARTA study of fedratinib versus placebo in patients with MF (NCT01437787). Methods In this international double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-arm study, patients aged ≥18 years with IPSS intermediate-2 or high-risk MF, platelet count ≥50 × 109/L, and splenomegaly were randomized (1:1:1) to receive placebo or fedratinib 400 mg or 500 mg, orally, once daily, in consecutive 4-week cycles. Patients who received placebo were eligible to cross-over to fedratinib (randomized 1:1 to 400 mg or 500 mg) following 6 cycles of treatment, or prior to Cycle 6 if the patient had disease progression. The primary endpoint was spleen response rate (RR) (≥35% reduction in spleen volume from baseline measured by MRI or CT at Week 24, and confirmed 4 weeks later). Secondary endpoints included symptom RR (≥50% reduction in total symptom score from baseline at Week 24, measured through a daily electronic eDiary using the modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form [Cancer 2011;117:4869. Blood 2011;118:401]), and safety of fedratinib. Results A total of 289 patients were randomized: median age 65 years; 59% male; 63% primary MF; 48% high-risk MF; 67% JAK2V617F positive; 16% platelet count <100 × 109/L; median baseline spleen volume 2568 mL (range 316–8244); median baseline total symptom score 14.7 (0–57). Median (range) exposures for placebo, 400 mg and 500 mg groups were 24 (2–34), 30 (1–55) and 28 (1–60) weeks, respectively. Spleen RRs at Week 24 (placebo 1%; 400 mg 47%; 500 mg 49%), and confirmed at Week 28 (placebo 1%; 400 mg 36%; 500 mg 40%), were significantly (p<0.0001) higher in both fedratinib groups compared with placebo (Table). Nineteen patients had a spleen response at Week 24 not confirmed 4 weeks later (spleen reduction 25–35% [n=10]; image not available/evaluable [n=8]; image taken outside time window [n=1]). Spleen RRs by baseline platelet level are shown in the table. Patients treated with fedratinib had significantly (p<0.0001) greater improvements in MF symptoms compared with placebo (Table). The most common all grade non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was diarrhea (16%, 66% and 56% of patients in the placebo, 400 mg and 500 mg groups, respectively). Grade 3/4 diarrhea was reported in 5% of patients in both the 400 mg and 500 mg dose groups. The most common hematologic TEAE was anemia (any grade 91%, 99% and 98%; Grade 3/4 25%, 43% and 60% in the placebo, 400 mg and 500 mg groups, respectively). Rates of Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia were 9% (placebo), 17% (400 mg), and 27% (500 mg). Incidences of Grade 3/4 liver function tests (placebo/400 mg/500 mg) were: bilirubin, 2%/2%/1%; ALT, 0%/3%/3%; and AST, 1%/2%/2%. Overall treatment discontinuation rates up to 24 weeks of treatment were 25% (placebo), 22% (400 mg) and 32% (500 mg). Twenty-five patients died during the study (10, 5 and 10 in the placebo, 400 mg and 500 mg groups, respectively); the most common causes of death: disease progression (placebo [n=5]; 400 mg [n=3]; 500 mg [n=4]) and adverse events (placebo [n=4]; 400 mg [n=1]; 500 mg [n=4]). Conclusions In this Phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled, 3-arm study of 289 MF patients, treatment with fedratinib 400 mg or 500 mg once-daily demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant reductions in splenic volume and MF-associated symptom burden versus placebo. Fedratinib had an acceptable safety profile, with the adverse events reported consistent with those observed in previous studies. This study was sponsored by Sanofi. Disclosures: Pardanani: Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, PharmaMar and JW Pharma: Clinical trial support Other. 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. Cortes:Incyte, Sanofi: Consultancy; Incyte, Sanofi: Research Funding. Cervantes:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Novartis and Sanofi: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa:Incyte, Genentech, Lilly, MS Pharma, Gilead: Research Funding. Jourdan:Sanofi: Honoraria. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Drummond:Sanofi, Novartis, Celgene: Honoraria; TargeGen, Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi, Novartis, Celgene: Consultancy. Passamonti:Novartis, Celgene, Incyte, Sanofi, Roche: Honoraria. Neumann:Sanofi: Employment. Gao:Sanofi: Employment.