Citations

Abstract Background: PRM-151 (PRM) is a recombinant form of pentraxin-2, an endogenous human protein that acts at sites of tissue damage, inducing macrophage differentiation to prevent and reverse fibrosis. 27 patients with primary myelofibrosis (MF), post-essential thrombocythemia MF, or post-polycythemia vera MF and Grade 2 or 3 bone marrow (BM) fibrosis enrolled in the first stage of a 2-stage adaptive trial in which PRM-151 10 mg/kg IV was administered for 24 weeks in four different arms: PRM-151 QW (n=8), PRM-151 Q4W (n=7), PRM-151 QW + ruxolitinib (RUX) (n=6), or PRM-151 Q4W + RUX (n=6). At 24 weeks, reductions in BM fibrosis, improvements in hemoglobin (Hgb) and platelets (PLT), decreases in symptoms (MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score [TSS]), and modest reductions in spleen size by palpation were observed in all arms, with a favorable safety profile (Verstovsek, ASH 2014, Abstract 713). Patients experiencing clinical benefit were allowed to continue beyond 24 weeks. We now report efficacy and safety in 13 patients who have completed at least 72 weeks of treatment. Bone marrow fibrosis status by morphologic WHO grading and computer-assisted image analysis (CIA) are available up to 48 weeks in some patients, as assessed by central hematopathologist reviewers blinded to patient, treatment, and timepoint. BM data through 72 weeks is pending. WHO response was defined as ≥1 grade reduction in MF grade at any time and CIA response was defined as a decrease in the % fibrosis compared to baseline with a negative slope > 1. (Pozdnyakova, EHA 2015, Abstract P677). Baseline Demographics (N=13): Median age 60 (51-76); 46% DIPSS Int-1, 54% DIPSS Int-2; 62% PMF, 15% post-ET MF, 23% post-PV MF; 46% grade 3 BM fibrosis, Hgb < 100 g/L in 38%, PLT < 100 x 109/L in 69% and <50 x 109/L in 38%; 31% JAK inhibitor-naive and 69% received a prior or current JAK inhibitor. Study treatment (N=13): In the first 24 weeks, treatment was PRM-151 QW (n=5), PRM-151 Q4W (n=3), PRM-151 QW + RUX (n=2), PRM-151 Q4W + RUX (n=3). At 28 weeks, treatment changed to PRM-151 QW (n=2), PRM-151 Q4W (n=7), and PRM-151 Q4W + RUX (n=4), with 1 patient stopping RUX for thrombocytopenia. Both PRM-151 QW patients switched to PRM-151 Q4W after 40 and 52 weeks. Two patients missed weeks 64 and 68 due to complications of a motor vehicle accident and abdominal surgery, respectively, but are continuing treatment as of week 72. BM (n=13): 54% had a morphologic response, and 85% had a CIA response. Hgb (g/L): In 5 pts with baseline Hgb < 100, median Hgb increased by 24% from 86 (range 77-97) at baseline to 107 (range 71-113) at Week 72. 3 of 5 patients who were receiving transfusions at baseline became transfusion independent, with durations of 32-60 weeks. (Figure 1) PLT (x 109/L): In 9 pts with baseline < 100, median PLT count increased by 37% from 38 (range 10-89) at baseline to 52 (range 26-159) at Week 72. All 4 patients who were receiving PLT transfusions at baseline became transfusion independent, with durations of 24-44 weeks. (Figure 2) Symptoms (N=13): 69% and 38% of patients had ≥ 50% and 100% reductions from baseline in TSS between 24 and 72 weeks, with durations of up to 48 and 12 weeks, respectively. (Figure 3) Spleen (N= 9 with palpable spleens at baseline): 50% of pts had ≥25% reduction, 2 of whom had ≥50% reduction lasting > 12 weeks. (Figure 4) Safety (N=13): Most common adverse events (AEs) regardless of relatedness were fatigue (4), nausea (3), fever (3), cough (2), diarrhea (2), tooth infection (2), headache (2), upper respiratory infection (2), hyperglycemia (2), and hyperuricemia (2). There were 13 possibly or probably related adverse events in 3 patients from beginning of study through 71 weeks, 11 Grade 1, 1 Grade 2 and 1 Grade 3, with no event occurring in > 1 patient. There were no related serious AEs in these patients. Conclusion: In 13 patients completing at least 72 weeks, PRM-151 treatment was well tolerated, and improvements in Hgb, PLT, symptoms and spleen appeared to increase with longer treatment duration. Disclosures Mesa: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Foltz:Promedior: Research Funding. Gupta:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Kalobios: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Ritchie:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Hoffman:All Cells, LLC: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Geron: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Promedior: Research Funding. Silver:Promedior: Research Funding. Pozdnyakova:Promedior: Consultancy. Hasserjian:Promedior: Consultancy. Trehu:Promedior: Employment, Equity Ownership. Salama:Promedior: Consultancy. Gotlib:Allakos, Inc.: Consultancy.

Abstract PRM-151 (PRM) is a recombinant form of Pentraxin-2, an endogenous human protein that acts at sites of tissue damage, inducing macrophage differentiation to prevent and reverse fibrosis. PRM has broad anti-fibrotic activity in multiple preclinical models of established fibrotic diseases and no dose limiting toxicities in phase 1 trials. Myelofibrosis (MF: primary (PMF), post-essential thrombocythemia (post-ET MF), and post polycythemia vera (Post PV MF)) is a myeloid malignancy characterized by progressive bone marrow (BM) fibrosis with resultant anemia, abnormal platelet and leukocyte counts, extramedullary hematopoiesis, and a well-defined symptom complex. This study investigated the potential of PRM in MF to reduce BM fibrosis and to improve key disease features including abnormal blood counts, symptoms, and splenomegaly. MF patients (pts) with Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) intermediate-1, intermediate-2, or high-risk disease and grade ≥ 2 BM fibrosis, either on no current therapy or on a stable dose of ruxolitinib (RUX) for ≥ 12 weeks and no improvement in spleen for ≥ 4 weeks, were eligible for stage 1 of this open-label adaptive trial. Assignment to one of the 4 treatment arms was per investigator and pt choice: PRM 10 mg/kg IV 1-hour infusion days 1, 3, 5, then weekly (QW) or every 4 weeks (Q4W), alone or with RUX, for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was overall response rate by IWG-MRT (symptoms by MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS), spleen by palpation) and/or decrease in BM fibrosis by ≥ 1 grade with otherwise stable disease. BM biopsies were obtained at baseline, 3 and 6 months, and were evaluated centrally by two blinded hematopathologists. Pts with clinical benefit were allowed to continue treatment in an extension. At least one response in any arm was required for that regimen to be evaluated in Stage 2. Twenty seven pts were enrolled: 8 PRM QW, 7 PRM Q4W, 6 PRM QW + RUX, 6 PRM Q4W + RUX. Median age 67 years (52-85); 70% DIPSS Int-2 or High Risk; 52% PMF, 15% post-ET MF, 33% post-PV MF; 63% grade 3 BM fibrosis, Hemoglobin (Hgb) < 100 g/L in 56% and < 85 g/L in 26%, platelet count (PLT)< 100 x 109/L in 52% and < 25 x 109/L in 30%; 22% were JAK inhibitor-naive and 52% had received a prior JAK inhibitor (not including ongoing RUX). Twenty pts completed 24 weeks of therapy; 18 continued extension treatment. PRM-151 was well-tolerated alone and with RUX; most adverse events (AEs) were Grade 1/2 and unrelated, with 3 Grade 3 possibly related AEs and 5 possibly related serious AEs. Nine of 26 evaluable pts responded, for an overall response rate (ORR) of 35%, with 4 IWG symptom clinical improvements (CI) and 6 BM fibrosis responses (Table 1), with ≥ 1 response in each arm. One pt had a CI and BM response. Reduction in BM fibrosis was associated with normal erythroid microarchitecture, normal or decreased myeloid:erythroid ratio, and fewer paratrabecular megakaryocytes, all potential surrogates of improved bone marrow microenvironment. IWG stable disease was observed in 77% of pts, with trends of clinical benefit in Hgb, PLT, peripheral blood blasts, spleen, and symptoms (Table 2). In 14 patients (54%), all parameters were stable or improved. Conclusion: PRM-151 was well-tolerated in patients with advanced MF, with no evidence of drug-related myelosuppression and encouraging trends in both clinical and histologic aspects of the disease. Reduction in BM fibrosis, stable to improved hematologic parameters, symptom responses, and stable to reduced spleen size support further development of PRM-151 in MF. Table 1 Two additional subjects had decrease in bone marrow fibrosis but progressive disease. Number of Patients BM Fibrosis Grade at Last Study Timepoint 3 2 1 BM Fibrosis Grade at Baseline 3 8 3 1 2 1 4 2 Abstract 713. Table 2 Outcome Parameter Denominator (n) Clinical Benefit Pts with Improvement (n/%) ORR (primary endpoint) All evaluable pts (26) IWG-MRT CI AND/OR reduction in BM fibrosis by ≥ 1 grade 9 (35%) Hgb Hgb < 100 g/L (15) ≥10 g/L increase from baseline AND no transfusions or 50% reduction in transfusions if transfusion dependent 6 (40%) PLT PLT < 100 x 109/L (13) > 100 x 109/L AND increase of ≥20 x 109/L ; increase of ≥20 x 109/L if baseline < 50, AND/OR increase of ≥ 10 x 109/L with discontinuation of transfusions 8 (62%) Blasts ≥ 1% peripheral blasts (14) No peripheral blasts 3 (21%) Symptoms All evaluable pts (26) ≥ 25% reduction in TSS ≥ 12 weeks 10 (38%) Spleen Palpable spleen (19) ≥ 25% decrease ≥ 4 weeks AND any decrease ≥ 12 weeks 5 (26%) Disclosures Verstovsek: Incyte: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Lilly Oncology: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Cell Therapeutics: Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte, CTI, NS pharma, Gilead, Celgene: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Foltz:Janssen: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Gupta:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Ritchie:Celgene, Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Promedior: Research Funding. Hoffman:Geron: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; All Cells LLC: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Promedior: Research Funding. Pozdnyakova:Sanofi: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Promedior: Consultancy. Hasserjian:Sanofi: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Promedior: Consultancy. Trehu:Promedior: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kantarjian:ARIAD, Pfizer, Amgen: Research Funding. Gotlib:Novartis: Research Funding, Travel Reimbursement, Travel Reimbursement Other; Sanofi: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Travel Reimbursement Other; Promedior: Research Funding.

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

Abstract Background: The Philadelphia chromosome negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) includePolycythemia Vera (PV), Essential Thrombocythemia (ET) and Primary Myelofibrosis (PMF). These stem cell disorders carry a propensity to evolve into acute myeloid leukemia (MPN-blast phase [BP] or post-MPN AML) with a dismal prognosis not meaningfully improved by conventional anti-leukemia therapy. Thus, MPN-BP is an urgent unmet clinical need. Responses in patients with MPN-BP to hypomethylating agents and single agent ruxolitinib have been reported. More recently, combination of ruxolitnib and decitabine has demonstrated synergistic activity in vitro in cells derived from patients with MPN-BP and from a murine model of MPN-BP (Rampal et al PNAS 2014). These observations led us to explore the safety of combined decitabine and dose escalation of ruxolitinib in MPN-BP. Objective: To establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of ruxolitinib in combination with a fixed dose of decitabine (DEC-RUX). Methods: We conducted an open label Phase I trial in patients with MPN acceleration phase (AP) as defined by 10%-19% blasts in the peripheral blood or bone marrow or a diagnosis of MPN-BP as defined by ≥ 20% blasts in the blood or bone marrow, following a previous diagnosis of ET, PV or PMF. Patients were enrolled in a standard 3+3 phase I design with an MTD defined as a dose <33% DLT. Ruxolitinib was administered at doses of 10mg, 15mg, 25mg, or 50mg every 12 hours in combination with concurrent decitabine at a dose of 20mg/m2 daily intravenously over 5 days and repeated every 28 days. Adverse events were assessed using the NCI CTCAE v. 4.0. DLTs were defined as Grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicity events not clearly related to disease and grade 4 hematologic events with a bone marrow cellularity of ≤5% and no evidence of leukemia. Response assessment was carried out every cycle using modified Cheson criteria: CR required 0% peripheral blood blasts, WBC ≥4x109/L, hemoglobin ≥10g/L, and platelets ≥100x109/L; CRi required 0% peripheral blood blasts with incomplete count recovery; and PR required ≥50% decrease in peripheral blood blasts regardless of blood counts. Results: A total of 21 patients were accrued to study (Table 1). The median age was 63 years (range 48-88). 52% carried a diagnosis of MPN-AP, and 48% carried a diagnosis of MPN-BP. 29% of patients and 24% of patients had prior exposure to ruxolitinb and decitabine, respectively. The median number of cycles received varied from 10.5 cycles in the 10mg BID cohort to 2 and 2.5 cycles in the 25mg BID and 50mg BID cohorts, respectively (Table 2). The most common Grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs observed were due to infection in all dosing cohorts. In terms of hematologic toxicity, treatment emergent Grade 3/4 anemia was observed in 1 patient in each of the 10mg BID, 15mg BID, and 50mg BID cohorts. Grade 3/4 leukopenia was observed in only 1 patient at the 50mg BID cohort, and Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was observed in 2 patients in the 10mg BID cohort and 1 patient in the 15mg BID cohort. DLT rate was below 33% for all dose levels so the MTD was not reached. The most common reason for ending study treatment was toxicity/adverse events (33%) followed by disease progression (22%). 9 patients died during study or follow-up. Of those, 5 (56%, 2 in 10mg BID cohort, 1 in 15mg BID cohort, 2 in 50mg BID cohort) died of infection, 3 (33%, 1 in each of 10mg, 25mg, and 50mg BID cohorts) of progressive disease, and 1 (11%, 25mg BID cohort) of hemorrhage. The median overall survival for patients on study was 10.4 months (95% CI 3.3 mo - not reached). CR/CRi as best response was observed in 7/21 patients (33%, 95% CI 15-57%; 2 CR, 5 CRi; Table 2). Conclusions: DEC-RUX combination therapy was safely administered to patients with MPN-AP/BP and an MTD was not reached. Based on pre-clinical data, observed safety profile, duration of treatment, and clinical responses in this phase I trial, the Recommended Phase II Dose of RUX was selected as 25mg BID for an induction cycle followed by 10mg BID in all ensuing cycles. Molecular and bone marrow pathology responses will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Promedior: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: DSMB , Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Clinical Trial Steereing Committee, Research Funding. Hexner:Blueprint medicines: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding. Abboud:Alexion: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Baxalta: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Gerson and Lehman Group: Consultancy; Cardinal: Honoraria. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy; Qiagen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa:Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding.

Yacoub et al report excellent responses to pegylated interferon alfa-2a in patients with hydroxyurea-resistant/intolerant polycythemia vera or essential thrombocythemia.

Abstract Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), including polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and primary myelofibrosis, have a propensity to evolve into accelerated and blast-phase disease (MPN-AP/BP), carrying a dismal prognosis. Conventional antileukemia therapy has limited efficacy in this setting. Thus, MPN-AP/BP is an urgent unmet clinical need. Modest responses to hypomethylating agents and single-agent ruxolitinib have been reported. More recently, combination of ruxolitinib and decitabine has demonstrated synergistic in vitro activity in human and murine systems. These observations led us to conduct a phase 1 study to explore the safety of combined decitabine and dose-escalated ruxolitinib in patients with MPN-AP/BP. A total of 21 patients were accrued to this multicenter study. Ruxolitinib was administered at doses of 10, 15, 25, or 50 mg twice daily in combination with decitabine (20 mg/m2 per day for 5 days) in 28-day cycles. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The most common reasons for study discontinuation were toxicity/adverse events (37%) and disease progression (21%). Fourteen patients died during study treatment period or follow-up. The median overall survival for patients on study was 7.9 months (95% confidence interval, 4.1-not reached). Among evaluable patients, the overall response rate by protocol-defined criteria (complete remission with incomplete count recovery + partial remission) was 9/17 (53%) and by intention-to-treat analysis was 9/21 (42.9%). The combination of decitabine and ruxolitinib was generally well tolerated by patients with MPN-AP/BP and demonstrates potentially promising clinical activity. A phase 2 trial evaluating the efficacy of this combination regimen is ongoing within the Myeloproliferative Disorder Research Consortium.