Citations

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

Background Interferons are recognized as active agents in the treatment of patients with high risk essential thrombocythemia (ET) or polycythemia vera (PV), both in the upfront setting as well as beyond. Several trials have shown high rates of hematologic and molecular responses with the use of interferons, however, data on direct comparison of interferon activity in patients with early disease in comparison to patients refractory or resistant to prior therapies, such as hydroxyurea (HU) are lacking. We conducted a controlled analysis of the activity of pegylated interferon alfa-2a (PEG) in two prospective parallel clinical trials conducted in these two unique patient populations. Methods The MPD-RC 111 (NCT01259817) was an international, multicenter, phase 2 open-label clinical trial that evaluated PEG therapy in patients with high risk PV and high-risk ET who were either refractory or intolerant (R/I) to HU by modified ELN criteria. The MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) enrolled patients with high risk ET/PV who were treatment-naïve (TN) (HU <3 months) and randomized them (1:1) to PEG or HU. All patients randomized to PEG were included in this analysis. Both protocols were conducted concurrently at the MPD-RC member institutions and utilized a similar primary endpoint of overall response rate (complete and partial response rates) by ELN Criteria at 12 months confirmed by the same blinded central review committee. Both studies utilized the same PEG starting dose of 45 mcg weekly and was titrated for response to a maximum of 180 mcg weekly. Secondary endpoints included safety information, impact on disease biomarkers, bone marrow (BM) response, and quality of life data. Results Patients ET: 39 TN and 65 R/I ET patients were available for this analysis. Median disease duration was 2.9 months in TN and 37.3 months in R/I patients. Baseline characteristics and demographics were similar in the two cohorts except lower baseline hemoglobin level in RI patients. (Table1A) PV: 43 TN and 50 R/I PV patients were included. Median disease duration was 2.5 months in TN and 54.8 months in R/I patients. Baseline characteristics only differed by lower frequency of phlebotomy rate in R/I patients. (Table1B) Baseline symptoms scores and quality of life were similar in TN and RI groups (Table 2) Response ET: CR/PR/ORR at 12 months were observed in 43.1%/26.2%/69.2% in R/I ET patients and in 43.6%/25.6%/69.2% in TN ET patients (p=0.99 for ORR). (Table 3, Figure 1) PV: CR/PR/ORR at 12 months were observed in 22%/38%/60% in R/I PV patients, and in 27.9%/58.1%/86% in TN PV patients (p=0.005 for ORR). (Table 3, Figure 1) Safety PEG was equally well tolerated throughout both treatment groups with treatment discontinuation due to adverse events occurring in 14.6% in TN patients and 13.9% in R/I patients. The mean (SD) dose of PEG was 102.7 (52.3) mcg in R/I ET patients and 128.7mcg (46.4) in R/I PV patients. For TN patients, mean dose was 85.7mcg (59.7) in ET and 93.5 mcg (44.0) in PV. Adverse events were consistent with historic reports of PEG use and the distribution of events was similar in R/I and TN patients. (Table 4) Conclusion This intention to treat response analysis included TN and R/I ET and PV patients with balanced baseline characteristics who received prospective therapy with PEG. Patients with ET had a higher overall response rate at 12 months that was equivalent in patients who were treatment-naïve and in patients who were intolerant or refractory to HU. By contrast, patients with PV who were treatment-naïve had a higher ORR than patients those intolerant or refractory to HU. We conclude that treatment with PEG is an effective therapeutic option both treatment naïve PV and ET as well as those previously treated with HU, however PEG as a second line agent is especially effective in ET patients. Disclosures Yacoub: Hylapharm: Equity Ownership; Agios: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ardelyx: Equity Ownership; Cara: Equity Ownership; Dynavax: Equity Ownership. Mascarenhas:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmaessentia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding. Mesa:AbbVie: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Sierra Onc: Consultancy; Genotech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy. Rampal:Agios, Apexx, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, Constellation, and Jazz: Consultancy; Constellation, Incyte, and Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Silver:PharmEssentia: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. McMullin:Daiko Sanyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Italopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ewing:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Meeting attendance sponsorship ; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Other: Meeting attendance sponsorship . O'Connell:Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mead:Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CTI: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy. De Stefano:Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Baer:Astellas: Research Funding; Al Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Vannucchi: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; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Kremyanskaya:La Jolla: Consultancy; Incyte, Celgene, Constellation, Protagonist.: Research Funding. Hexner:novartis: Research Funding. Rambaldi:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Omeros: 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, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: 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, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau, travel support. Ritchie:Genentech: Other: Advisory board; Tolero: Other: Advisory board; agios: Other: Advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Advisory board, travel support; Celgene: Other: Advisory board; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene, Novartis: Other: travel support; AStella, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, NS Pharma, Pfizer: Research Funding; Ariad, Celgene, Incyte, Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer: Consultancy. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Harrison:Promedior: Honoraria; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; CTI: Speakers Bureau; AOP: Honoraria; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hoffman:Merus: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Pegylated Interferon Alfa-2a for in Patients with Polycythemia Vera or Essential Thrombocythemia

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 Background Myelofibrosis (MF) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) characterised by the frequent presence of driver mutations in genes causing activation of JAK2 signalling pathways (JAK2, CALR and MPL). Additional mutations affecting epigenetic regulators and splicing machinery are common. Anaemia with RBC-transfusion-dependence is common in patients with advanced myelofibrosis and represents a major unmet need. The RESUME study assessed the rates of RBC-transfusion independence (TI) after therapy with Pomalidomide (POM) vs placebo in persons with MPN-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion dependence. 16% of patients in both the POM and placebo arms became TI. Aims The genetic landscape of strictly confirmed transfusion dependent MF is not fully characterised. Our aim was to analyse the genetics of transfusion-dependent myelofibrosis patients in the RESUME trial and correlate with clinical characteristics, outcome and therapy response. Methods DNA samples were available from 207 of 252 patients and analysed by targeted re-sequencing using a Fluidigm Access Array gene panel followed by next generation sequencing. The panel included JAK2, CALR, MPL, TET2, ASXL1, EZH2, DNMT3A, IDH1/2, CBL, IKZF1, U2AF1, CHEK2, TP53, SF3B1, SRSF2, SH2B3, BARD1, DAP3, HRAS, IRF4, KRAS, KIT, Mir662, NFE2, POLG, SCRIB, SETBP1, TCF12 and VPS45. Results 97% (95-99%) of subjects had a mutation in ≥1 targeted gene. 2 mutations were detected in 41% (34-48%) and ≥3 in 27% (21-33%). 7 had no detectable mutation. Mutations in JAK2V617F, CALR and MPL were identified in 66% (59-72%), 14% (8-19%) and 7% (4-11%) of subjects (Figure 1), with no driver mutation in 27 patients (13%; 9-18%) (triple-negative). 68% (61-74%) had additional non-driver mutations. 42% (35-48%) (N=86) had spliceosome mutations (U2AF1 [21%]; SF3B1 [11%]; SRSF2 [8%]; ZRSR2; [6%]). More spliceosome mutations were detected in men than women (47% [39-55%] vs 27% [15-40%]; p=0.009). Spliceosome mutations were mutually exclusive in 83 subjects and were less common in subjects with prior polycythaemia vera (17% [5-37%]) compared with prior essential thrombocythaemia (39% [22-58%]) and primary MF (46% [38-54%]; p=0.024). Mutations in epigenetic regulators (ASXL1, 28%; TET2, 8%; DNMT3A 5%; EZH2 4%) were detected at similar rates to those previously reported. High molecular risk (HMR) mutations (ASXL1, EZH2, IDH1/2, SRSF2) were detected in 36% [29-43%] of subjects. Only 10 of 105 subjects with an epigenetic regulator gene mutation had ≥1 related mutation. Subjects with JAK2V617F were significantly more likely than subjects with a CALR mutation to have: (1) ≥1 additional mutation (72% [64-79%] vs. 35% [18-54%], p=0.0001); (2) a spliceosome mutation (44% [36-53%] vs. 17% [6-36%], p=0.07), in particular a U2AF1 mutation (24% [17-32%] vs. 0%; p=0.004) and (3) a HMR mutation (38% [30-47%] vs. 21% [8-40%]; p=0.07). Survival at 1.5 years was 62% (55-67%) and was not significantly associated with the presence or number of mutations in this uniformly high-risk cohort. Survival in subjects without an SF3B1 mutation was better than those SF3B1-mutated (80% [56-91%]) vs. 59% [52-65%]; p=0.07). Driver mutation status did not influence the probability of achieving red blood cell (RBC) TI, regardless of therapy. Additional non-driver mutations were more often detected in those failing to achieve RBC-TI than those achieving RBC-TI (70% [63-77%] vs 56% [40-71%], p=0.07). Furthermore, those with additional non-driver mutations were less likely to achieve ≥50% reduction in RBC transfusions (24% [17-32%] vs. 39% [27-51%]; p=0.03). A significant correlation persisted in subjects receiving POM but not in those receiving placebo. There was also a significant correlation between U2AF1 mutations and RBC-TI in POM treated subjects compared with controls; U2AF1-mutated subjects were less likely to achieve RBC-TI (3% [1, 17%]) than U2AF1-unmutated subjects (25% [17, 34%], p=0.008). No other mutations were significantly correlated with response. Conclusion We found a high incidence of spliceosome mutations in persons with MPN-associated MF and RBC-transfusion-dependence. Mutation of U2AF1 correlated with response in subjects receiving POM but not in those receiving placebo. Incorporation of mutation profiling into clinical trial design may help to inform subgroups of patients that may benefit from the intervention. Disclosures Devos: Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Gisslinger:Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kiladjian:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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. Mesa:Celgene: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Pfizer: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Ribrag:argenX: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel; NanoString Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; pharmamar: Other: travel; Infinity: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Other: travel; epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Schiller:Celator/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Vannucchi:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ITALFARMACO: 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. Reiser:Celgene: Employment. Zhong:Celgene: Employment. Mead:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Elstar: Research Funding; Evotek: Research Funding.

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