Catalano, John

Abstract Background: In the pivotal FIRST trial, at the pre-specified planned analysis for progression-free survival (PFS), treatment (Tx) with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous) improved outcomes for transplant-ineligible patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) compared with melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT), as well as Rd for 18 cycles (Rd18; Benboubker, NEJM 2014). Rd18 was added as a third arm to investigate whether Rd continuous Tx would control progression of NDMM longer than Rd18. Here, we present the final analysis of the overall survival (OS) data from the trial. Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM were randomized 1:1:1 to Rd continuous (with lenalidomide given on days 1-21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression), Rd18 (with lenalidomide given on days 1-21 of eighteen 28-day cycles), or MPT (twelve 42-day cycles); both Rd18 and MPT were 72 weeks in duration. The primary endpoint was PFS and the key secondary endpoint was OS; the primary comparison was Rd continuous vs MPT. Other secondary endpoints included time to second therapy (TTST) and safety. Time from randomization to second progression or death (PFS2) was an exploratory analysis. Response assessment used for PFS and PFS2 analysis was determined by investigators based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Results: At the time of cutoff for the final OS analysis (January 21, 2016), 52 of the 535 pts in the Rd continuous arm and none of the pts in the Rd18 (n = 541) and MPT (n = 547) arms continued to receive Tx. The median follow-up for surviving pts was 67.0 months (range, 0-86.8 months). In the pre-specified final OS analysis for the primary comparison, a statistically significant advantage in OS was shown with Rd continuous over MPT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.92; P = .00234; Table). OS for Rd continuous vs Rd18 was evaluated (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20). In this updated analysis, a PFS advantage continued to be seen for Rd continuous vs MPT (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79; P < .00001) and vs Rd18 (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81). Median TTST was longer for Rd continuous vs MPT (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.54-0.73; Table). More pts in the Rd18 and MPT arms started second-line therapy (n = 377 and 381, respectively) compared with the Rd continuous arm (n = 299). Pts received a variety of Tx at progression, with bortezomib-based regimens the most common in the Rd continuous (n = 179; 59.9%), Rd18 (n = 208; 55.2%), and MPT (n = 170; 44.6%) arms. Pts who received bortezomib after Rd continuous or Rd18 had better outcomes than those who received it after MPT. PFS2 for Rd continuous was improved vs MPT (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.85). Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86.3%, 80.2%, and 88.7% of the 532, 540, and 541 pts in the safety populations of the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms, respectively; the most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (29.5%, 26.5%, and 44.9%) and infections (31.6%, 21.9%, and 17.2%), and no new safety signals were seen compared with earlier analyses. Study discontinuation was most commonly due to disease progression and was less common in the Rd continuous vs Rd18 and MPT arms (50.7% vs 66.9% and 61.6%, respectively). Discontinuation due to AEs was similar across the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms (12.0%, 13.1%, and 13.9%). Solid tumor second primary malignancies (SPMs) occurred in 6.0, 6.9%, and 5.9% of pts, and hematologic malignancies occurred in 0.8%, 0.4%, and 2.6% of pts in the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms, respectively. Conclusions: Rd continuous significantly prolonged PFS and OS, and improved other secondary endpoints compared with MPT in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Rd continuous also showed a PFS benefit compared with Rd18, delaying the time to next Tx. PFS2 outcomes suggest that Rd does not induce resistant relapses. Few hematologic malignancies occurred in the Rd arms, and the incidence of SPMs was similar between Rd continuous and Rd18. Rd continuous remains a standard of care for transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Disclosures Facon: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel and expense, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri:Celgene: Research Funding. Belch:Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ludwig:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Cavenagh:Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Geraldes:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De La Rubia:Amgen, Bristol, Celgene, Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Attal:janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; sanofi: Consultancy. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Houck:Celgene: Employment. Hulin:celgene: Honoraria; Bristol: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; takeda: Honoraria. Benboubker:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 800 Background: Ruxolitinib (RUX), an oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, reduced spleen volume (SV), improved myelofibrosis (MF)-associated symptoms and quality of life (QoL), and appeared to exhibit a survival advantage over placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with MF regardless of JAK2V617F mutation status in the phase III COMFORT-I study. We describe long-term efficacy and safety of RUX from COMFORT-I, with 1 year of additional follow up beyond previously published data. Methods: Eligible pts (N=309) were randomized (1:1) to RUX or PBO. The primary analysis occurred when all pts completed 24 weeks (wks) and when half the pts completed 36 wks of treatment. All pts receiving PBO were eligible for crossover to RUX after the primary analysis; crossover before wk 24 was permitted if pts met protocol-defined criteria for worsening splenomegaly. The proportion of pts with ≥35% SV reduction at 24 wks (primary endpoint) and durability of SV response were assessed. Although symptom burden (measured daily using the modified MF Symptom Assessment Form v2.0) was only measured up to wk 24, QoL continued to be evaluated beyond wk 24 (every 24 wks) using the EORTC QoL Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30). Overall survival (OS) was assessed according to original randomized treatment. Results: In this updated analysis, median follow-up of pts randomized to RUX was 102 wks. All pts receiving PBO completed crossover or discontinued within 3 months of the primary analysis. Of 134 pts randomized to RUX who remained on treatment after the primary data analysis, 100 continue on study. Mean SV reduction in pts randomized to RUX was 31.6% at wk 24 and has remained stable with additional follow up through wk 96 (Table). In pts who achieved a ≥35% SV reduction, response was durable, with a median response duration of 108 wks. RUX treatment was also associated with durable improvements in the Global Health Status/QoL (Table) and the 5 functional domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Twenty-seven (27) pts randomized to RUX and 41 pts randomized to PBO died, representing a continued OS benefit in favor of RUX (HR=0.58; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.95; P = 0.028; Fig 1) similar in magnitude to that previously reported. OS favored RUX across subgroups including starting dose as well as baseline risk status and hemoglobin (Hgb). Of 34 pts randomized to RUX who discontinued after the primary analysis, 4 discontinued for an adverse event (AE). In pts who continued on RUX, anemia and thrombocytopenia remained the most frequently reported AEs. New onset of grade 3 or 4 anemia and thrombocytopenia was reported in only 12 and 5 pts, respectively. One pt discontinued for anemia. Overall, among all pts randomized to RUX, Grade 3 and 4 anemia regardless of baseline Hgb was reported in 37.4% and 14.8% of pts, respectively. Similarly, Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia was reported in 11.0% and 5.2% of pts, respectively. These rates were similar to those reported in the primary analysis. By wk 36, the proportion of pts receiving red blood cell transfusions decreased to the level seen with PBO and remained stable thereafter (Fig 2). Rates of nonhematologic AEs adjusted for increased follow-up duration remain similar to those seen at the time of the primary data analysis. No additional cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in pts randomized to RUX were reported. Two pts originally randomized to PBO developed AML, 21 and 178 days after crossover to RUX. There continued to be no reports of a withdrawal syndrome after RUX discontinuation. Conclusions: RUX provides durable reductions in SV and improvements in QoL. Although all pts randomized to PBO crossed over to RUX shortly after the primary analysis, with 1 year of additional follow up, RUX continues to be associated with a survival advantage over PBO. RUX continues to be well tolerated; the AE profile with long-term treatment is consistent with that previously reported. The proportion of pts receiving transfusions decreased over time to rates similar to PBO, and there were no reports of a specific withdrawal syndrome or cytokine rebound phenomenon after RUX discontinuation. Disclosures: Verstovsek: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; YM Bioscience: Research Funding. Gotlib:Incyte: Consultancy, travel to congress Other. Levy:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gupta:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; YM Biosciences: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofiå]Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Catalano:Incyte: Consultancy. Deininger:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy. Miller:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau, development of educational presentations Other; Incyte: development of educational presentations, development of educational presentations Other. Talpaz:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; B.M.S.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Winton:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Arcasoy:Incyte: Research Funding. Lyons:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Telik: Research Funding. Paquette:Incyte: Consultancy. Vaddi:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Erickson-Viitanen:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sun:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sandor:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kantarjian:Incyte: grant support Other.

7000 Background: MMB, an oral JAKi, has been shown in early trials to reduce spleen volume, improve disease associated symptoms (Sx) and improve RBC transfusion (Tx) requirements in patients (pts) with MF. This study was designed to test non-inferiority of MMB vs RUX in splenic volume reduction and Sx amelioration, and superiority in Tx requirement, in JAKi naïve MF pts. Methods: Eligibility: MF, IPSS high risk, Int-2, or symptomatic Int-1; palpable spleen ≥5cm; platelets ≥ 50 K/μl, and no Gr ≥2 peripheral neuropathy (PN). Stratification by Tx dependency and platelets (<100, 100-200 and >200 K/μl). Pts were randomized 1:1 to 24 wks of MMB 200 mg qd + RUX placebo or RUX 20 mg bid (or modified per label) + MMB placebo, after which all pts could receive open label MMB. Assessments: spleen volume by MRI, and pt reported Sx using a daily eDiary of modified MPN-SAF Total Sx Score (TSS). Primary endpoint was splenic response rate (SRR; ≥35% reduction in volume from baseline) at 24 wks. Secondary endpoints, evaluated sequentially at 24 wks, were rates of TSS response (≥50% reduction from baseline), RBC Tx independence (TI), RBC Tx dependence (TD) and of RBC Tx . Results: 175 of 215 (81%) and 201 of 217 (93%) pts randomized to MMB and RUX, respectively, completed the 24 wk DB phase. Efficacy results are shown in Table. Most common Gr ≥3 AEs in the DB phase with MMB were thrombocytopenia (7%) and anemia (6%), and with RUX were anemia (23%), thrombocytopenia (5%) and neutropenia (5%). Gr ≥3 infections occurred in 7% of MMB and 3% of RUX pts. Treatment emergent PN occurred in 22 (10%) of MMB (all Gr ≤2) and 10 (5%) of RUX (9 Gr ≤2, 1 Gr 3) pts in DB phase, none discontinuing study drug for PN. Overall, AEs led to study drug D/C in 13% of MMB and 6% of RUX pts in DB phase. Conclusions: In pts with JAKi naive MF, 24 weeks of MMB is non-inferior to RUX for spleen response but not for symptom response. MMB treatment is associated with a reduced transfusion requirement. NCT01969838. [Table: see text]

Key Points Rd continuous significantly extended OS compared with MPT and resulted in comparable OS to that with Rd18 in patients with multiple myeloma. Patients achieving complete or very good partial response with Rd benefited greatly from continuous vs fixed treatment in terms of PFS.

Purpose We evaluated the efficacy and safety of momelotinib, a potent and selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor (JAKi), compared with ruxolitinib, in JAKi-naïve patients with myelofibrosis. Patients and Methods Patients (N = 432) with high risk or intermediate-2 risk or symptomatic intermediate-1 risk myelofibrosis were randomly assigned to receive 24 weeks of treatment with momelotinib 200 mg once daily or ruxolitinib 20 mg twice a day (or per label), after which all patients could receive open-label momelotinib. The primary end point was a ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume at 24 weeks of therapy. Secondary end points were rates of symptom response and effects on RBC transfusion requirements. Results A ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume at week 24 was achieved by a similar proportion of patients in both treatment arms: 26.5% of the momelotinib group and 29% of the ruxolitinib group (noninferior; P = .011). A ≥ 50% reduction in the total symptom score was observed in 28.4% and 42.2% of patients who received momelotinib and ruxolitinib, respectively, indicating that noninferiority was not met ( P = .98). Transfusion rate, transfusion independence, and transfusion dependence were improved with momelotinib (all with nominal P ≤ .019). The most common grade ≥ 3 hematologic abnormalities in either group were thrombocytopenia and anemia. Grade ≥ 3 infections occurred in 7% of patients who received momelotinib and 3% of patients who received ruxolitinib. Treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy occurred in 10% of patients who received momelotinib (all grade ≤ 2) and 5% of patients who received ruxolitinib (all grade ≤ 3). Conclusion In JAKi-naïve patients with myelofibrosis, 24 weeks of momelotinib treatment was noninferior to ruxolitinib for spleen response but not for symptom response. Momelotinib treatment was associated with a reduced transfusion requirement.

SummaryMyelofibrosis (MF) patients can present with a wide spectrum of disease characteristics. We analysed the consistency of ruxolitinib efficacy across patient subgroups in the COntrolled MyeloFibrosis Study With ORal JAK Inhibitor Treatment (COMFORT‐I,) a double‐blind trial, where patients with intermediate‐2 or high‐risk MF were randomized to twice‐daily oral ruxolitinib (n = 155) or placebo (n = 154). Subgroups analysed included MF subtype (primary, post‐polycythaemia vera, post‐essential thrombocythaemia), age (≤65, > 65 years), International Prognostic Scoring System risk group, baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0, 1, ≥2), JAK2 V617F mutation (positive, negative), baseline haemoglobin level (≥100, <100 g/l), baseline platelet count (100–200 × 109/l, >200 × 109/l), baseline palpable spleen size (≤10, >10 cm), and baseline quartile of spleen volume and Total Symptom Score (TSS; Q1 = lowest, Q4 = highest). Mean percentage change from baseline to week 24 in spleen volume and TSS were calculated for ruxolitinib and placebo in each subgroup. Overall survival was estimated by Kaplan–Meier method according to original randomization group. In ruxolitinib‐treated patients, reductions in spleen volume and TSS and evidence of improved survival relative to placebo across subgroups were consistent with those seen in the COMFORT‐I population, confirming that ruxolitinib is an effective therapy for the spectrum of MF patients studied in COMFORT‐I.

Purpose To assess the effects of ruxolitinib on symptom burden and quality of life (QoL) and to evaluate the ability of the modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) v2.0 to measure meaningful changes in myelofibrosis-related symptoms in patients with myelofibrosis. Patients and Methods COMFORT-I (Controlled Myelofibrosis Study With Oral JAK Inhibitor Treatment–I) is a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study evaluating ruxolitinib in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis. Exploratory analyses were conducted on the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessments: modified MFSAF v2.0 (individual symptoms and Total Symptom Score [TSS]), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Fatigue Scale, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Results Patients receiving ruxolitinib experienced improvements in individual myelofibrosis-related symptoms, although patients receiving placebo experienced worsening (P < .001). The majority (91%) of ruxolitinib-treated patients designated as ≥ 50% TSS responders (≥ 50% TSS improvement) self-reported their condition as either “Much improved” or “Very much improved” on the PGIC. These patients achieved significant improvements in the EORTC QLQ-C30 functional domains and Global Health Status/QoL versus patients receiving placebo, who experienced worsening on these measures (P ≤ .0135). Ruxolitinib-treated patients with a lesser degree of symptom improvement (< 50% TSS responders) also achieved improvements over placebo on these measures. The degree of spleen volume reduction with ruxolitinib correlated with improvements in TSS, PGIC, PROMIS Fatigue Scale, and EORTC Global Health Status/QoL. Ruxolitinib-treated patients who achieved a ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume experienced the greatest improvements in these PROs. Conclusion Ruxolitinib-treated patients achieved clinically meaningful improvements in myelofibrosis-related symptoms and QoL, but patients receiving placebo reported worsening of symptoms and other PROs.

Purpose The long-term impact of thalidomide plus dexamethasone (thal/dex) as primary therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) is unknown. The goal of this study was to compare thalidomide plus dexamethasone versus placebo plus dexamethasone (placebo/dex)as primary therapy for newly diagnosed MM. Patients and Methods In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with untreated symptomatic MM were randomized to thal/dex (arm A) or to placebo plus dexamethasone (dex) (arm B). Patients in arm A received oral thalidomide 50 mg daily, escalated to 100 mg on day 15, and to 200 mg from day 1 of cycle 2 (28-day cycles). Oral dex 40 mg was administered on days 1 through 4, 9 through 12, and 17 through 20 during cycles 1 through 4 and on days 1 through 4 only from cycle 5 onwards. Patients in arm B received placebo and dex, administered as in arm A. The primary end point of the study was time to progression. This study is registered at http://ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT00057564 ). Results A total of 470 patients were enrolled (235 randomly assigned to thal/dex and 235 to placebo/dex). The overall response rate was significantly higher with thal/dex compared with placebo/dex (63% v 46%), P < .001. Time to progression (TTP) was significantly longer with thal/dex compared with placebo/dex (median, 22.6 v 6.5 months, P < .001). Grade 4 adverse events were more frequent with thal/dex than with placebo/dex (30.3% v 22.8%). Conclusion Thal/dex results in significantly higher response rates and significantly prolongs TTP compared with dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed MM.