MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Long-Term Ruxolitinib (RUX) on Bone Marrow (BM) Morphology in Patients with Myelofibrosis (MF) Enrolled in the COMFORT-I Study

2016· article· en· W2724175224 on OpenAlexaff
Hans Michael Kvasnicka, Jüergen Thiele, Carlos E. Bueso‐Ramos, William Sun, Ahmad Naim, Smitha Svaraman, Jessy Gao, Jason Gotlib, Vikas Gupta, Kim‐Hien Dao, Moshe Talpaz, Elliott F. Winton, Jimmie H. Harvey, Srđan Verstovšek

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyelofibrosisRuxolitinibInternal medicineInternational Prognostic Scoring SystemPopulationBone marrowGastroenterologyEssential thrombocythemiaPolycythemia veraSurgeryMyelodysplastic syndromes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: MF is a life-shortening complication of myeloproliferative neoplasms associated with ineffective hematopoiesis, splenomegaly, cytopenias, debilitating symptoms, and progressive BM fibrosis The 2 phase 3 COMFORT studies have shown that RUX, an oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1/JAK2 inhibitor, improves splenomegaly, constitutional symptoms, and overall survival in patients with MF. Accumulating evidence suggests that RUX may also modulate the BM microenvironment. Aims: We evaluated the effects of long-term RUX treatment on changes in BM fibrosis in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk primary MF, post-polycythemia vera MF, or post-essential thrombocythemia MF who were enrolled in the phase 3 COMFORT-I study. Methods: BM biopsies were obtained at baseline (BL), Weeks 48 and 72, and approximately every 48 weeks thereafter for up to 5 years of RUX treatment. Biopsies were reviewed independently in a blinded fashion (blinded for patient and treatment) by 3 hematopathologists (HMK, JT, and CEB-R). The final grading was based on consensus; no disagreements were recorded. The WHO grading system was used to grade BM fibrosis density based on a scale of 0-3 (Thiele et al, Haematologica 2005;90). Other details on the patient population and study design for the COMFORT-I study have been published previously (Verstovsek et al, N Engl J Med 2012;366). Biopsies from 59 patients were included in this exploratory analysis; patients who failed screening or received only 1 BM measurement were excluded. Three subgroups were defined for the analysis: 1) originally randomized to RUX (n=36); 2) randomized to placebo with BM measurements at BL and Week 48 (n=15); and 3) crossover to RUX with BM measurements at BL and ≥1 post-BL measurement after crossover (n=21). Changes from BL in BM fibrosis grades at various time points were categorized for each patient as improvement (-1 to -3), stabilization (0), or worsening (1 to 3). Patients with a BL score of 0 for improvement and 3 for worsening were excluded from the analysis. Patients who received placebo for ≥36 weeks were included in the crossover group, with Week 48 used as the BL BM measurement. RUX and crossover groups were combined for evaluation of RUX effect. Placebo effect in the crossover group was assessed by analyzing change from BL to Week 48. Change from BL was evaluated using a signed rank test. Change from BL to last grade, and time to the first occurrence of a ≥1 grade improvement from BL was assessed for RUX and crossover groups. KM analysis was used to estimate time to improvement in BM fibrosis for a subgroup of patients who had a BM fibrosis grade of ≥1 at BL. Results: BL characteristics for age, gender, International Prognostic Scoring System risk, spleen volume, hemoglobin, and platelet counts were similar between the 3 groups. At BL, of 36 patients originally randomized to RUX, 17% (n=6) presented with WHO-defined fibrosis grade 1, 39% (n=14) with grade 2, and 36% (n=13) with grade 3 (3 patients were grade 0). Of the 15 patients randomized to placebo, 20% (n=3) presented with grade 1, 40% (n=6) with grade 2, and 27% (n=4) with grade 3 WHO-defined fibrosis at BL (2 patients were grade 0). Mean exposure to RUX in the RUX and crossover groups was 136.0 (SD, 67.4) weeks and 129.1 (SD, 67.7) weeks, respectively. The proportion of evaluable patients with an improvement in BM fibrosis from BL to Week 48 was 26% (n=27) in the RUX group and 15.4% (n=13) in the placebo group. When evaluating all patients who received RUX (including placebo crossover), a significant shift was observed from BL to the last change in BM fibrosis grade (P=0.0119; signed rank test). For all RUX-treated patients (n=57), 33% (grade -1, n=11; -2, n=7; -3, n=1) had an improvement, 49% had no change or stabilization, and 18% had a worsening in BM fibrosis from BL to the last grade (Figure). At the final grading, 82% (n=47) of patients had improvement or stabilization while on RUX. Median time to a ≥1 grade improvement in BM fibrosis grade was approximately 3.5 years (95% CI, 2.5 to 4.5; n=51). Conclusions: This analysis from the COMFORT-I study showed that treatment with RUX was associated with improvement and stabilization in WHO-defined BM fibrosis in the majority of patients with MF in this study cohort. These results support evidence from other studies, suggesting that RUX treatment may contribute to disease-modifying effects in MF. The clinical effect of improvement and stabilization in BM fibrosis requires further study. Disclosures Kvasnicka: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria; AOP Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Thiele:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sun:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Naim:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Svaraman:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gao:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gotlib:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Gupta:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dao:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Talpaz:Incyte Corporation: Other: Travel expense reimbursement, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Ariad: Other: Expense reimbursement, travel accomodation expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: travel accomodation expenses, Research Funding. Winton:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Verstovsek:AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Lilly Oncology: Research Funding; Galena BioPharma: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma Corp: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Genentech: 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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