MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Association of transfusion independence with improved overall survival in myelofibrosis patients receiving momelotinib.

2021· article· en· W3169177304 on OpenAlexaff
Ruben A. Mesa, Stephen T. Oh, Aaron T. Gerds, Vikas Gupta, John Catalano, Francisco Cervantes, Timothy Devos, Marek Hus, Jean‐Jacques Kiladjian, Ewa Lech‐Marańda, Donal P. McLornan, Jeanne Palmer, Uwe Platzbecker, Jacek Treliński, Kazuya Shimoda, Rafe Donahue, Bryan Strouse, Mark Kowalski, Srđan Verstovšek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSierra Wireless (Canada)Princess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRuxolitinibMyelofibrosisInternal medicineAnemiaRandomized controlled trialClinical trialGastroenterologyPhases of clinical researchOncologyBone marrow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7046 Background: Momelotinib (MMB) is a potent JAK1, JAK2 and ACVR1 inhibitor with clinical activity against the hallmark features of myelofibrosis (MF), namely anemia, constitutional symptoms and splenomegaly, across the continuum of JAKi naïve or previously JAKi treated intermediate/high risk MF patients as demonstrated in the previously conducted Phase 3 SIMPLIFY-1 & -2 clinical trials (S1, S2). S1 enrolled JAKi-naïve patients with MF (n = 432) double-blind randomized 1:1 to MMB or ruxolitinib (RUX). S2 enrolled patients with MF with hematological toxicity during prior RUX therapy (n = 156) randomized 2:1 to open-label MMB or best available therapy (BAT; consisting of RUX in 88% of patients). In both trials, following the 24-week randomized treatment (RT) period, patients could continue MMB (MMB→MMB) and those randomized to RUX/BAT could cross-over to MMB (RUX/BAT→MMB) for extended treatment (ET). Previously published data from the SIMPLIFY studies demonstrate robust overall survival (OS) for MMB-treated patients in S1 and S2 (median not reached and 34.3 months, respectively) with a maximum follow up of approximately 5 years and median of 2.9 years in S1 and 2.3 years in S2. Methods: OS data for patients receiving MMB in S1 and S2 are reported here for subgroups defined by Week 24 (W24) transfusion independence (TI) responders vs non-responders, and also other efficacy endpoints. Survival was estimated using KM analysis with descriptive log-rank tests for comparison applied (all p-values are descriptive). Results: As previously reported, W24 TI rates were higher in the MMB arms of S1 (67% vs 49%) and S2 (43% vs 21%). In S1, W24 TI responders in the MMB group show an OS advantage, with median OS not reached and 3-year survival of 80% (HR = 0.30; p = 0.0001) compared to MMB TI non-responders. Similarly in S2, W24 TI responders in the MMB group show a trend toward better OS compared to TI non-responders (HR = 0.57; p = 0.0652). The HRs in S1 for MMB responders vs non-responders for W24 SRR and TSS were 0.59 (p = 0.0904) and 0.65 (p = 0.1657), respectively. Alternative analyses using OS defined from W24 demonstrated consistent results. Conclusions: These new analyses suggest JAKi naïve patients receiving MMB who maintain or achieve TI at W24 have favorable OS compared to MMB TI non-responders, with a similar trend observed in S2. These findings are consistent with anemia and transfusion dependency being key predictors of shortened OS in MF and suggest that TI response at W24 may become a surrogate for clinical benefit, supporting the clinical relevance of MMB’s differentiated pro-erythropoietic ACVR1 inhibition. Clinical trial information: NCT01969838.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.334 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→