MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2555002983 · doi:10.1182/blood.v126.23.1604.1604

The Impact of Anemia on Overall Survival in Patients with Myelofibrosis Treated with Ruxolitinib: An Exploratory Analysis of the Comfort Studies

2015· article· en· W2555002983 sur OpenAlexaff
Vikas Gupta, Claire Harrison, Elizabeth O. Hexner, Haifa Kathrin Al‐Ali, Lynda Foltz, Michael T. Montgomery, Wei Peng, Prashanth Gopalakrishna, Hagop M. Kantarjian, Srđan Verstovšek

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRuxolitinibMedicineAnemiaMyelofibrosisInternational Prognostic Scoring SystemInternal medicineProportional hazards modelSurvival analysisSurgeryGastroenterologyMyelodysplastic syndromesBone marrow

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Anemia is a sign of disease progression and a key prognostic factor in myelofibrosis (MF). In the phase 3 COMFORT studies, ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/JAK2 inhibitor, demonstrated improved overall survival compared with placebo and best available therapy in patients with intermediate 2 or high-risk MF (per the International Prognostic Scoring System [IPSS]). Ruxolitinib treatment was associated with dose-dependent increases in cytopenias that occurred mostly in the first 12 weeks of therapy and were manageable with dose adjustments and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the differential impact of disease-related anemia (anemia at baseline) and anemia occurring after initiation of ruxolitinib therapy on overall survival (OS) in patients with MF. Methods: Data from the COMFORT-I and COMFORT-II 3-year data cuts were pooled for this exploratory analysis for patients who survived at least 12 weeks after day 1. Baseline anemia was defined as hemoglobin (Hgb) < 10 g/dL at baseline or receipt of RBC transfusions within 12 weeks prior to day 1. Postbaseline anemia was defined as new or worsening anemia within the first 12 weeks after initiation of ruxolitinib therapy that was grade ≥ 2 (per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0) and a higher grade than at baseline; this time frame captures 85% of these events during ruxolitinib treatment. Patients were assessed for OS using a cox model stratified by study and baseline anemia status to evaluate the impact of anemia occurring after ruxolitinib initiation on OS. Results: Among patients treated with ruxolitinib (n = 296), 162 patients were not anemic at baseline and 134 patients were anemic at baseline. Of the 162 patients who were not anemic at baseline, 99 had postbaseline anemia; of the 134 with anemia at baseline, 93 also had postbaseline anemia. Consistent with published prognostic models, anemia at study baseline was prognostic of decreased survival in this study (Figure 1). A higher proportion of those who were anemic at baseline had PMF (58% vs 40%) and high-risk disease per the IPSS (69% vs 40%) vs those who were not anemic at baseline. As expected, mean platelet count (308.3 × 109/L vs 280.5 × 109/L), Hgb (12.2g/dL vs 9.1 g/dL), and leukocyte count (24.2 × 109/L vs 17.0 × 109/L) were higher among patients who were not anemic at baseline vs those who were. Within the subgroups of patients with and without baseline anemia, postbaseline anemia did not impact OS during ruxolitinib therapy (Figure 1) (overall hazard ratio for no postbaseline anemia vs postbaseline anemia = 1.030; 95% CI: 0.615-1.725). Patients treated with ruxolitinib had improved OS compared to control patients, both among those with anemia and without anemia at baseline (Figure 1) (overall hazard ratio for ruxolitinib vs control = 0.644; 95% CI: 0.459-0.903; P = .0102). OS probability at 3 years for ruxolitinib vs control was 0.66 vs 0.57 among patients with anemia at baseline, and 0.87 vs 0.66 among patients without anemia at baseline. Conclusions: Consistent with validated prognostic models, baseline anemia was associated with decreased OS in the COMFORT studies. Treatment with ruxolitinib improved OS as compared with the control arm regardless of baseline anemia status. Notably, postbaseline anemia that occurred on ruxolitinib therapy did not impact OS and was manageable with dose adjustments and RBC transfusions. We conclude that early onset ruxolitinib-related anemia does not have the same deleterious effect as disease-related anemia. Figure 1. Overall survival based on baseline and postbaseline anemia status and treatment received in the COMFORT studies. Rux, ruxolitinib; TI, therapy initiation. Figure 1. Overall survival based on baseline and postbaseline anemia status and treatment received in the COMFORT studies. Rux, ruxolitinib; TI, therapy initiation. Disclosures Gupta: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding. Harrison:Gilead: Honoraria; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Al-Ali:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Foltz:Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Montgomery:Incyte: Employment. Peng:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gopalakrishna:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Lilly Oncology: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma Corp.(formerly Cell Therapeutics, Inc.): Research Funding; Galena BioPharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,039

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,004
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,299
Écart entre enseignants0,264 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207