Ruxolitinib in cytopenic myelofibrosis: Response, toxicity, drug discontinuation, and outcome.
cytopenia
myelodepletive phenotype
myelofibrosis
myeloproliferative neoplasms
ruxolitinib
Journal
Cancer
ISSN: 1097-0142
Titre abrégé: Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0374236
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2023
01 06 2023
Historique:
revised:
17
11
2022
received:
14
10
2022
accepted:
13
01
2023
medline:
11
5
2023
pubmed:
19
3
2023
entrez:
18
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients with cytopenic myelofibrosis (MF) have more limited therapeutic options and poorer prognoses compared with patients with the myeloproliferative phenotype. Prognostic correlates of cytopenic phenotype were explored in 886 ruxolitinib-treated patients with primary/secondary MF (PMF/SMF) included in the RUX-MF retrospective study. Cytopenia was defined as: leukocyte count <4 × 10 Overall, 407 (45.9%) patients had a cytopenic MF, including 249 (52.4%) with PMF. In multivariable analysis, high molecular risk mutations (p = .04), intermediate 2/high Dynamic International Prognostic Score System (p < .001) and intermediate 2/high Myelofibrosis Secondary to Polycythemia Vera and Essential Thrombocythemia Prognostic Model (p < .001) remained associated with cytopenic MF in the overall cohort, PMF, and SMF, respectively. Patients with cytopenia received lower average ruxolitinib at the starting (25.2 mg/day vs. 30.2 mg/day, p < .001) and overall doses (23.6 mg/day vs. 26.8 mg/day, p < .001) and achieved lower rates of spleen (26.5% vs. 34.1%, p = .04) and symptom (59.8% vs. 68.8%, p = .008) responses at 6 months compared with patients with the proliferative phenotype. Patients with cytopenia also had higher rates of thrombocytopenia at 3 months (31.1% vs. 18.8%, p < .001) but lower rates of anemia (65.6% vs. 57.7%, p = .02 at 3 months and 56.6% vs. 23.9% at 6 months, p < .001). After competing risk analysis, the cumulative incidence of ruxolitinib discontinuation at 5 years was 57% and 38% in patients with cytopenia and the proliferative phenotype (p < .001), whereas cumulative incidence of leukemic transformation was similar (p = .06). In Cox regression analysis adjusted for Dynamic International Prognostic Score System score, survival was significantly shorter in patients with cytopenia (p < .001). Cytopenic MF has a lower probability of therapeutic success with ruxolitinib as monotherapy and worse outcome. These patients should be considered for alternative therapeutic strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patients with cytopenic myelofibrosis (MF) have more limited therapeutic options and poorer prognoses compared with patients with the myeloproliferative phenotype.
AIMS AND METHODS
Prognostic correlates of cytopenic phenotype were explored in 886 ruxolitinib-treated patients with primary/secondary MF (PMF/SMF) included in the RUX-MF retrospective study. Cytopenia was defined as: leukocyte count <4 × 10
RESULTS
Overall, 407 (45.9%) patients had a cytopenic MF, including 249 (52.4%) with PMF. In multivariable analysis, high molecular risk mutations (p = .04), intermediate 2/high Dynamic International Prognostic Score System (p < .001) and intermediate 2/high Myelofibrosis Secondary to Polycythemia Vera and Essential Thrombocythemia Prognostic Model (p < .001) remained associated with cytopenic MF in the overall cohort, PMF, and SMF, respectively. Patients with cytopenia received lower average ruxolitinib at the starting (25.2 mg/day vs. 30.2 mg/day, p < .001) and overall doses (23.6 mg/day vs. 26.8 mg/day, p < .001) and achieved lower rates of spleen (26.5% vs. 34.1%, p = .04) and symptom (59.8% vs. 68.8%, p = .008) responses at 6 months compared with patients with the proliferative phenotype. Patients with cytopenia also had higher rates of thrombocytopenia at 3 months (31.1% vs. 18.8%, p < .001) but lower rates of anemia (65.6% vs. 57.7%, p = .02 at 3 months and 56.6% vs. 23.9% at 6 months, p < .001). After competing risk analysis, the cumulative incidence of ruxolitinib discontinuation at 5 years was 57% and 38% in patients with cytopenia and the proliferative phenotype (p < .001), whereas cumulative incidence of leukemic transformation was similar (p = .06). In Cox regression analysis adjusted for Dynamic International Prognostic Score System score, survival was significantly shorter in patients with cytopenia (p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
Cytopenic MF has a lower probability of therapeutic success with ruxolitinib as monotherapy and worse outcome. These patients should be considered for alternative therapeutic strategies.
Substances chimiques
ruxolitinib
82S8X8XX8H
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1704-1713Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.
Références
Campbell PJ, Green AR. The myeloproliferative disorders. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(23):2452-2466. doi:10.1056/nejmra063728
Marcellino BK, Verstovsek S, Mascarenhas J. The myelodepletive phenotype in myelofibrosis: clinical relevance and therapeutic implication. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020;20(7):415-421. doi:10.1016/j.clml.2020.01.008
Hernández-Boluda JC, Correa JG, Alvarez-Larrán A, et al. Clinical characteristics, prognosis and treatment of myelofibrosis patients with severe thrombocytopenia. Br J Haematol. 2018;181(3):397-400. doi:10.1111/bjh.14601
Masarova L, Mesa RA, Hernández-Boluda JC, Taylor JA. Severe thrombocytopenia in myelofibrosis is more prevalent than previously reported. Leuk Res. 2020;91:106338. doi:10.1016/j.leukres.2020.106338
Masarova L, Alhuraiji A, Bose P, et al. Significance of thrombocytopenia in patients with primary and postessential thrombocythemia/polycythemia vera myelofibrosis. Eur J Haematol. 2018;100(3):257-263. doi:10.1111/ejh.13005
Passamonti F, Cervantes F, Vannucchi AM, et al. Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) predicts progression to acute myeloid leukemia in primary myelofibrosis. Blood. 2010;116(15):2857-2858. doi:10.1182/blood-2010-06-293415
Gangat N, Caramazza D, Vaidya R, et al. DIPSS plus: a refined Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System for primary myelofibrosis that incorporates prognostic information from karyotype, platelet count, and transfusion status. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(4):392-397. doi:10.1200/jco.2010.32.2446
Tefferi A, Guglielmelli P, Lasho TL, et al. Mutation-enhanced international prognostic systems for essential thrombocythaemia and polycythaemia vera. Br J Haematol. 2020;189(2):291-302. doi:10.1111/bjh.16380
Passamonti F, Giorgino T, Mora B, et al. A clinical-molecular prognostic model to predict survival in patients with post polycythemia vera and post essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis. Leukemia. 2017;31(12):2726-2731. doi:10.1038/leu.2017.169
Elliott MA, Verstovsek S, Dingli D, et al. Monocytosis is an adverse prognostic factor for survival in younger patients with primary myelofibrosis. Leuk Res. 2007;31(11):1503-1509. doi:10.1016/j.leukres.2006.12.025
Dingli D, Schwager SM, Mesa RA, Li CY, Tefferi A. Prognosis in transplant-eligible patients with agnogenic myeloid metaplasia: a simple CBC-based scoring system. Cancer. 2006;106(3):623-630. doi:10.1002/cncr.21644
Coltro G, Mannelli F, Loscocco GG, et al. Differential prognostic impact of cytopenic phenotype in prefibrotic vs overt primary myelofibrosis. Blood Cancer J. 2022;12(8):1-7. doi:10.1038/s41408-022-00713-6
Harrison C, Kiladjian JJ, Al-Ali HK, et al. JAK inhibition with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy for myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):787-798. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1110556
Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Gotlib J, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):799-807. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1110557
JAKAVI (ruxolitinib) summary of product characteristics. European Medicines Agency. Novartis Pharm GmbH; 2019. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/jakavi
Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Gotlib J, et al. Long-term treatment with ruxolitinib for patients with myelofibrosis: 5-year update from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 COMFORT-I trial. J Hematol Oncol. 2017;10(1):55. doi:10.1186/s13045-017-0417-z
Tremblay D, Baine I, Mascarenhas J. Thrombocytopenia in patients with myelofibrosis: a practical management guide. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2022;22(12):e1067-e1074.
Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian R, et al. The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood. 2016;127(20):2391-2405. Blood. 2016 Jul 21;128(3):462-3. doi:10.1182/blood-2016-03-643544
Emanuel RM, Dueck AC, Geyer HL, et al. Myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) symptom assessment form total symptom score: prospective international assessment of an abbreviated symptom burden scoring system among patients with MPNs. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(33):4098-4103. doi:10.1200/jco.2012.42.3863
Tefferi A, Cervantes F, Mesa R, et al. Revised response criteria for myelofibrosis: International Working Group-Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT) and European LeukemiaNet (ELN) consensus report. Blood. 2013;122(8):1395-1398. doi:10.1182/blood-2013-03-488098
Vannucchi AM, Lasho TL, Guglielmelli P, et al. Mutations and prognosis in primary myelofibrosis. Leukemia. 2013;27(9):1861-1869. doi:10.1038/leu.2013.119
Palandri F, Palumbo GA, Bonifacio M, et al. Baseline factors associated with response to ruxolitinib: an independent study on 408 patients with myelofibrosis. Oncotarget. 2017;8(45):79073-79086. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.18674
Palandri F, Palumbo GA, Bonifacio M, et al. Durability of spleen response affects the outcome of ruxolitinib-treated patients with myelofibrosis: results from a multicentre study on 284 patients. Leuk Res. 2018;74:86-88. doi:10.1016/j.leukres.2018.10.001
Verstovsek S, Gotlib J, Mesa RA, et al. Long-term survival in patients treated with ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis: COMFORT-I and -II pooled analyses. J Hematol Oncol. 2017;10(1):156. doi:10.1186/s13045-017-0527-7
Verstovsek S, Parasuraman S, Yu J, et al. Real-world survival of US patients with intermediate-to high-risk myelofibrosis: impact of ruxolitinib approval. Ann Hematol. 2022;101(1):131-137. doi:10.1007/s00277-021-04682-x
Verstovsek S, Kiladjian JJ, Vannucchi AM, et al. Does early intervention in myelofibrosis impact outcomes? A pooled analysis of the Comfort I and II studies. Blood. 2021;138(Suppl 1):1505. doi:10.1182/blood-2021-150894
Cervantes F, Ross DM, Radinoff A, et al. Efficacy and safety of a novel dosing strategy for ruxolitinib in the treatment of patients with myelofibrosis and anemia: the REALISE phase 2 study. Leukemia. 2021;35(12):3455-3465. doi:10.1038/s41375-021-01261-x
Barraco F, Greil R, Herbrecht R, et al. Real-world non-interventional long-term post-authorisation safety study of ruxolitinib in myelofibrosis. Br J Haematol. 2020;191(5):764-774. doi:10.1111/bjh.16729
Quintás-Cardama A, Vaddi K, Liu P, et al. Preclinical characterization of the selective JAK1/2 inhibitor INCB018424: therapeutic implications for the treatment of myeloproliferative neoplasms. Blood. 2010;115(15):3109-3117. doi:10.1182/blood-2009-04-214957
Verstovsek S, Kantarjian H, Mesa RA, et al. Safety and efficacy of INCB018424, a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(12):1117-1127. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1002028
Palandri F, Breccia M, Bonifacio M, et al. Life after ruxolitinib: reasons for discontinuation, impact of disease phase, and outcomes in 218 patients with myelofibrosis. Cancer. 2020;126(6):1243-1252. doi:10.1002/cncr.32664
Harrison CN, Schaap N, Vannucchi AM, et al. Janus kinase-2 inhibitor fedratinib in patients with myelofibrosis previously treated with ruxolitinib (JAKARTA-2): a single-arm, open-label, non-randomised, phase 2, multicentre study. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4(7):e317-e324. doi:10.1016/s2352-3026(17)30088-1
Harrison CN, Schaap N, Vannucchi AM, et al. Fedratinib in patients with myelofibrosis previously treated with ruxolitinib: an updated analysis of the JAKARTA2 study using stringent criteria for ruxolitinib failure. Am J Hematol. 2020;95(6):594-603. doi:10.1002/ajh.25777
Mullally A, Hood J, Harrison C, Mesa R. Fedratinib in myelofibrosis. Blood Adv. 2020;4(8):1792-1800. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000954
Pardanani A, Harrison C, Cortes JE, et al. Safety and efficacy of fedratinib in patients with primary or secondary myelofibrosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(5):643-651. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1590
Mascarenhas J, Hoffman R, Talpaz M, et al. Pacritinib vs best available therapy, including ruxolitinib, in patients with myelofibrosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(5):652-659. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5818
Verstovsek S, Mesa R, Talpaz M, et al. Retrospective analysis of pacritinib in patients with myelofibrosis and severe thrombocytopenia. Haematologica. 2022 Jul 1;107(7):1599-1607. doi:10.3324/haematol.2021.279415
Gerds AT, Savona MR, Scott BL, et al. Determining the recommended dose of pacritinib: results from the PAC203 dose-finding trial in advanced myelofibrosis. Blood Adv. 2020;4(22):5825-5835. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003314
Oh ST, Talpaz M, Gerds AT, et al. ACVR1/JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor momelotinib reverses transfusion dependency and suppresses hepcidin in myelofibrosis phase 2 trial. Blood Adv. 2020;4(18):4282-4291. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002662
Mesa R, Oh ST, Gerds AT, et al. Momelotinib reduces transfusion requirements in patients with myelofibrosis. Leuk Lymphoma. 2022;63(7):1718-1722. doi:10.1080/10428194.2022.2043304