Real-World Assessment of Clinical Outcomes in Lower-Risk Myelofibrosis Patients Receiving Treatment with Ruxolitinib Davis KL et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Evaluation of Oral Azacitidine Using Extended Treatment Schedules: A Phase I Study Garcia-Manero G et al. Proc ASH 2010;Abstract 603.
Advertisements

Palumbo A et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 536.
Efficacy and Safety of Three Bortezomib-Based Combinations in Elderly, Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients: Results from All Randomized Patients.
Long-Term Outcome After Additional Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis versus Standard Treatment for Acute Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis (The CaVenT Study):
Casulo C et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 510.
Carfilzomib: High Single-Agent Response Rate with Minimal Neuropathy Even in High-Risk Patients 1 Baseline Peripheral Neuropathy Does Not Impact the Efficacy.
Results of a Randomized Study of the JAK Inhibitor Ruxolitinib (INC424) versus Best Available Therapy (BAT) in Primary Myelofibrosis (PMF), Post- Polycythemia.
Long-Term Effects of Continuing Adjuvant Tamoxifen to 10 Years versus Stopping at 5 Years After Diagnosis of Oestrogen Receptor- Positive Breast Cancer:
Utility of Post-Therapy Surveillance Scans in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Thompson C et al. Proc ASCO 2013;Abstract 8504.
Tang G et al. Proc SABCS 2010;Abstract S4-9.
Results of a Phase II Study of Pacritinib (SB1518), a Novel Oral JAK2 Inhibitor, in Patients with Primary, Post-Polycythemia Vera, and Post- Essential.
Effect of Age on Efficacy and Safety Outcomes in Patients (Pts) with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM) Receiving Lenalidomide and Low-Dose Dexamethasone.
Therapeutic Response to Azacitidine (AZA) in Patients with Secondary Myelodysplastic Syndromes (sMDS) Enrolled in the AVIDA Registry 1 Prospective Trial.
Treatment with Bendamustine- Bortezomib-Dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Shows Significant Activity and Is Well Tolerated Ludwig H.
The Efficacy and Safety of Continued Hydroxyurea Therapy versus Switching to Ruxolitinib in Patients with Polycythemia Vera: A Randomized, Double-Blind,
Sgroi DC et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract S1-9.
Metabolic Syndrome and Recurrence within the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay Risk Categories in Lymph Node Negative Breast Cancer Lakhani A et al. Proc.
ENESTnd Update: Nilotinib (NIL) vs Imatinib (IM) in Patients (pts) with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CML-CP) and the Impact.
Dose Interruption/Reduction of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in the First 3 Months of Treatment of CML Is Associated with Inferior Early Molecular Responses.
Efficacy, Hematologic Effects and Dose of Ruxolitinib in Myelofibrosis Patients with Low Platelet Starting Counts ( x 10 9 /L): A Comparison to Patients.
1Bachelot T et al. Proc SABCS 2010;Abstract S1-6.
A Phase II Study with Carfilzomib, Cyclophosphamide and Dexamethasone (CCd) for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Bringhen S et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract.
Complete Hematological Molecular and Histological Remissions without Cytoreductive Treatment Lasting After Pegylated-Interferon -2a (peg-IFN-2a) Therapy.
Lenalidomide Is Safe and Active in Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM) 1 Updated Results from a Multicenter, Open-Label, Dose-Escalation Phase 1b/2 Study.
Epic: A Phase 3 Trial of Ponatinib Compared with Imatinib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CP-CML) Lipton JH.
Higher Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) in the Outpatient versus Inpatient Setting Among Patients with Cancer in the United States Khorana A et.
Improved Survival in Patients with First Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Treated with Vosaroxin plus Cytarabine versus Placebo plus.
Final Efficacy Results from OAM4558g, a Randomized Phase II Study Evaluating MetMAb or Placebo in Combination with Erlotinib in Advanced NSCLC Spigel DR.
Rituximab Maintenance versus Wait and Watch After Four Courses of R-DHAP Followed by Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Previously Untreated Young.
A Phase 3 Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide Combined with Melphalan and Prednisone Followed by Continuous Lenalidomide Maintenance.
Rituximab plus Lenalidomide Improves the Complete Remission Rate in Comparison with Rituximab Monotherapy in Untreated Follicular Lymphoma Patients in.
Gray Zone Lymphoma (GZL) with Features Intermediate between Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL) and Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): A Large Retrospective.
1 CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DISTRIBUTE ARIES mCRC: Effectiveness and Safety of 1st- and 2nd-line Bevacizumab Treatment in Elderly Patients Mark Kozloff, MD.
A Phase 2 Study of Single-Agent Brentuximab Vedotin for Front- Line Therapy of Hodgkin Lymphoma in Patients Age 60 Years and Above: Interim Results Yasenchak.
Continued Overall Survival Benefit After 5 Years’ Follow-Up with Bortezomib-Melphalan-Prednisone (VMP) versus Melphalan-Prednisone (MP) in Patients with.
Changes in Quality of Life and Disease- Related Symptoms in Patients with Polycythemia Vera Receiving Ruxolitinib or Best Available Therapy: RESPONSE Trial.
A Phase II Study of Lenalidomide for Previously Untreated Deletion (del) 5q Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Patients Age 60 or Older Who Are Not Candidates.
Significant Prognostic Impact of [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET Scan Performed During and at the End of Treatment with R-CHOP in High- Tumor Mass Follicular.
S1207: Phase III Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial Evaluating the Use of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy +/- One Year of Everolimus in Patients.
A Multi-Center Phase I/II Trial of Carfilzomib and Pomalidomide with Dexamethasone (Car-Pom-d) in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Shah.
An Open-Label, Randomized Study of Bendamustine and Rituximab (BR) Compared with Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Vincristine, and Prednisone (R-CVP) or Rituximab,
Moskowitz CH et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 673.
Phase II Trial of R-CHOP plus Bortezomib Induction Therapy Followed by Bortezomib Maintenance for Previously Untreated Mantle Cell Lymphoma: SWOG 0601.
R-CHOP with Iodine-131 Tositumomab Consolidation for Advanced Stage Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): Southwest Oncology Group Protocol S0433 Friedberg.
Nabhan C et al. Proc ICML 2013;Abstract 102.
Responses to Subsequent Anti-HER2 Therapy After Treatment with Trastuzumab-DM1 in Women with HER2- Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer 1 A Phase Ib/II Trial.
Brentuximab Vedotin in Combination with RCHOP as Front-Line Therapy in Patients with DLBCL: Interim Results from a Phase 2 Study Yasenchak CA et al. Proc.
A European Collaborative Study of 230 Patients to Assess the Role of Cyclophosphamide, Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Upfront Treatment of Patients with.
Pomalidomide + Low-Dose Dexamethasone (POM + LoDex) vs High-Dose Dexamethasone (HiDex) in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): MM-003 Analysis.
Results from the International, Randomized Phase 3 Study of Ibrutinib versus Chlorambucil in Patients 65 Years and Older with Treatment-Naïve CLL/SLL (RESONATE-2TM)1.
Gajria D et al. Proc SABCS 2010;Abstract P
Platzbecker U et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 12.
New Findings in Hematology: Independent Conference Coverage
CCO Independent Conference Highlights
Mateos MV et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 403.
5-Azacytidine (AZA) in Combination with Ruxolitinib (RUX) as Therapy for Patients (pts) with Myelodysplastic/Myeloproliferative Neoplasms (MDS/MPNs)1  
Verstovsek S et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 793.
Goede V et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 3327.
Harrison CN et al. Proc ASH 2015;Abstract 59.
Combination Ruxolitinib + Sonidegib in Myelofibrosis
New Findings in Hematology: Independent Conference Coverage
Dimopoulos MA et al. Proc ASH 2012;Abstract LBA-6.
Future Directions in Myelofibrosis: Implications of Emerging Approaches.
Forero-Torres A et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 3711.
Martin M et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract S1-7.
1 Verstovsek S et al. Proc ASH 2012;Abstract Cervantes F et al.
Branford S et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 254.
Wiestner A et al. Proc ICML 2013;Abstract 008.
Leber B et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 94.
Coiffier B et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 265.
Presentation transcript:

Real-World Assessment of Clinical Outcomes in Lower-Risk Myelofibrosis Patients Receiving Treatment with Ruxolitinib Davis KL et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 1857.

Background The Phase III COMFORT-I trial demonstrated that ruxolitinib (RUX) improves both splenomegaly- and nonsplenomegaly-related constitutional symptoms in patients with intermediate-2 and high-risk myelofibrosis (MF) (NEJM 2012;366:799). However, few trial-based assessments of RUX for patients with lower-risk MF have been conducted, and no studies to date have made such assessments in real- world populations. Study objective: To assess changes in spleen size and constitutional symptoms during RUX treatment among patients with lower-risk MF in real-world clinical settings. Davis KL et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 1857.

Study Methods A retrospective, observational review of anonymized medical record data collected in January 2014 by 49 hematologists and oncologists in the United States. The study was exploratory, with the use of descriptive analyses only. Minimum target accrual: –Patients with intermediate-1-risk MF (n = 50) –Patients with low-risk MF (n = 25) Predetermined maximum number of patients on study (n = 110). Spleen size and constitutional symptoms were retrospectively observed at MF diagnosis, at RUX initiation and at best response while on RUX. Davis KL et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 1857 (Abstract only).

Study Methods (continued) Spleen size was captured via predefined categories: –No splenomegaly (spleen not palpable) –Very mild or mild splenomegaly (<10 cm palpated) –Moderate splenomegaly (10-20 cm palpated) –Severe splenomegaly (>20 cm palpated) Symptoms of interest included those captured in the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF), based on medical notes recorded at each time point and categorized as: –Mild, –Moderate, or –Severe Findings on the 7 most commonly observed MPN-SAF symptoms are presented in this study. Davis KL et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 1857 (Abstract only).

Eligibility Criteria Patients diagnosed with lower-risk MF International Prognostic Scoring System score of 0-1 First treatment with RUX ≥3 months before the medical record abstraction date Age ≥18 years at RUX initiation Patients with a complete medical history from MF diagnosis until the medical record abstraction date Patients who never enrolled in an MF-related interventional trial Davis KL et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 1857 (Abstract only).

Patient Characteristics Characteristic Low risk (n = 25) Intermediate-1 risk (n = 83) ≤65 years of age100%~80% Male60%69% JAK2 V617F-mutant MF56%72% Patients still receiving RUX at MRAD 92%77% Davis KL et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 1857 (Abstract only). MRAD = medical record abstraction date RUX start dates spanned from January 2012 to November The median observed RUX exposure time was approximately 8 months in both risk groups.

Spleen Size Measurements Patients with low-risk MF –The combined proportion of patients with moderate or severe splenomegaly (≥10-cm palpated spleen) decreased from 64% at MF diagnosis to 16% at best response during RUX treatment. Patients with intermediate-1-risk MF –Similar findings were observed: The proportion of patients with moderate or severe splenomegaly decreased from 53% at MF diagnosis to 10% at best response. Davis KL et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 1857 (Abstract only).

Constitutional Symptoms of Interest During RUX Treatment General fatigue was the most commonly observed constitutional symptom in both groups of patients (low-risk and intermediate-1-risk MF). Shifts in symptom severity from more severe to less severe were observed in both groups of patients. Among patients with low-risk MF, the proportion with moderate or severe fatigue decreased from 90% at MF diagnosis to 37% at best RUX response. Among patients with intermediate-1-risk MF, the decrease was from 76% at MF diagnosis to 42% at best response. For most other symptoms, similar improvements in severity distribution were observed. Davis KL et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 1857 (Abstract only).

Author Conclusions Patients with low-risk and those with intermediate-1-risk MF experienced a substantial decrease in spleen size from MF diagnosis through RUX treatment in real-world clinical settings. Furthermore, for most symptoms examined, there was a distinct improvement in the distribution of symptom severity at the time of best response during RUX treatment. These findings suggest that patients with lower-risk MF may benefit clinically from RUX treatment. Further studies are needed to assess adverse effects and evaluate the benefit-risk tradeoff of RUX therapy. Davis KL et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 1857 (Abstract only).

Investigator Commentary: Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes in Low-Risk and Intermediate-1-Risk MF Treated with RUX This is an interesting study because it addresses 2 important questions. First, whether a clinical trial really reflects what you would expect in general practice because many features change when you take them to a broader audience, such as the selection of patients and expertise in managing the therapeutic agent. Second, it focuses on patients with low- risk and intermediate-1-risk MF, whereas much experience has been generated in the higher-risk patient population. All patients had received RUX because they had symptoms of MF such as splenomegaly. The study essentially demonstrated that RUX can produce a significant reduction in spleen size. The percentage of patients in the moderate to severe splenomegaly category was reduced significantly from 64% at diagnosis to 16% with RUX. Similar findings were observed in the low-risk and intermediate-1- risk groups. Evaluation showed benefit with RUX for many general symptoms. Fatigue decreased from 90% to 37% of patients with low-risk MF. Clearly patients with indications for treatment benefit from RUX in general and community practice, even those with low-risk MF. My clinical experience aligns with the benefits shown in this study, even though RUX is indicated only for patients with intermediate- and high-risk disease. Interview with Jorge E Cortes, MD, January 14, 2015