MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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 on 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

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRuxolitinibMedicineAnemiaMyelofibrosisInternational Prognostic Scoring SystemInternal medicineProportional hazards modelSurvival analysisSurgeryGastroenterologyMyelodysplastic syndromesBone marrow

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207