Deheshi, Samineh

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm that typically manifests with debilitating symptoms that progressively worsen, negatively impacting patients’ quality of life. Fatigue is a multifactorial and burdensome MF-related symptom due to its severity, persistence, and prevalence, with anemia a contributing factor and major unmet need. Clinical trials of the Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2/activin A receptor type 1 inhibitor momelotinib have shown consistent anemia benefits, in addition to improvements in MF-related symptoms. The phase 3 MOMENTUM trial in symptomatic and anemic patients met its primary end point, with a greater proportion having a Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) Total Symptom Score (TSS) reduction ≥50% at week 24 with momelotinib versus danazol. To support the positive primary end point result, we conducted longitudinal, responder, and time-to-event analyses of patient-reported outcomes from MOMENTUM, as measured by the MFSAF, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) assessments. These analyses demonstrated rapid and durable response benefits with momelotinib, with achievement of first TSS response by day 29 and continued improvement over time. Improvements favored momelotinib versus danazol for each MFSAF individual item, and greater improvements were observed for disease- and cancer-related fatigue and physical functioning at week 24, with significant results for multiple items/domains across the 3 assessments. These findings are consistent in demonstrating that momelotinib provides substantial symptom benefit.

AbstractBackgroundMyelofibrosis (MF)‐associated constitutional symptoms can severely impact health‐related quality of life. Clinical trials in MF traditionally measure symptom response to treatment as a landmark endpoint of total symptom score (TSS) reduction ≥50% from baseline. However, this dichotomous assessment provides a limited view of clinically relevant symptomatic changes. Herein we evaluated longitudinal change from baseline in TSS over the continuous 24‐week period and individual symptom scores to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of symptom benefits experienced by patients with MF receiving therapy.MethodsLongitudinal symptom change was evaluated using mixed‐effect model repeated measure (MMRM) methodology with individual item‐level analyses to complement the interpretation of the landmark symptom results in the completed phase III SIMPLIFY studies of momelotinib in MF. MMRM compared mean change in TSS from baseline with Week 24 using data from all patient visits. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate item‐level odds ratios using multiple predictive imputations for missing data.ResultsMomelotinib and ruxolitinib groups reported similar overall symptom improvements, with a TSS difference of <1.5 points between groups for each post‐baseline visit in SIMPLIFY‐1. In SIMPLIFY‐2, the improvement in TSS observed in momelotinib‐treated patients was consistent with that observed in SIMPLIFY‐1, whereas progressive TSS deterioration was observed with control. Item‐level scores were heterogeneous in both studies. A similar and greater proportion of momelotinib‐treated patients were categorized as “improved” or “stable” compared with control in SIMPLIFY‐1 and SIMPLIFY‐2, respectively. Odds ratios for between‐group comparison ranged from 0.75 to 1.21 in SIMPLIFY‐1, demonstrating similarity in likelihood of symptom improvement. In SIMPLIFY‐2, the likelihood of symptom improvement in each item was higher in the momelotinib arm.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that momelotinib provides clinically relevant symptom benefits in the JAK inhibitor‐naïve and JAK inhibitor‐exposed settings.

e19040 Background: Clinical trials investigating JAK1/JAK2 inhibitors for myelofibrosis (MF) subjects have measured symptom improvement as a minimum 50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS) at the end of a 24-week treatment period. This landmark analysis is based on post-baseline score changes from Weeks 21 (W21) to 24 and requires vastly different absolute TSS improvements for patients with very high or low baseline (BL) TSS to reach responder status. A phase 3 clinical study, SIMPLIFY-1, randomized 432 intermediate and high risk JAK inhibitor (JAKi) naive MF patients 1:1 to momelotinib (MMB) or ruxolitinib (RUX). Non-inferiority on the MPN-SAF TSS response rate endpoint at W24 was not met (MMB: 28% vs RUX: 42%); however, improvement in each of the 7 TSS items was similar for MMB vs RUX. To understand the discrepancy, we applied item analysis and mixed effect models for repeated measures (MMRM) to SIMPLIFY-1. Methods: Analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in a symptomatic subset (selected as subjects with BL TSS ≥ 10). The distributions of TSS items were examined at BL and shift in scores at W24 (health state shifts) were assessed. GEE models were used to estimate item-level odds ratios using multiple predictive imputations for missing data. MMRM compared mean change in TSS from BL to W24 using data from all visits. The meaningful change threshold (MCT) was determined using Patient Global Impression of Change. Results: BL scores across items were heterogenous in the MMB and RUX groups; the proportion of subjects with no or mild symptoms (0–3 on a 0-10 point scale) ranged from 44% (tiredness) to 81% (itching). Distributions of BL scores were different across arms with 6 out of 7 items in the MMB arm reporting more severe or very severe symptoms (scores of 7-10) at BL. Despite the imbalance in BL scores, item-level health state shifts showed similar improvements for MMB and RUX. Categorical responder analysis showed no significant differences on any items. Odds ratios for each between-group comparison ranged from 0.74 to 1.20. MMRM mean TSS change at W24 was 6.35 (MMB) vs 7.87 (RUX) in the ITT and 8.80 (MMB) vs 10.46 (RUX) in the symptomatic subset. Mean TSS were near the within-subject MCT of 8 points in the ITT and exceeded the MCT in the symptomatic subset. The between-group difference was 1.52 (95% CI: (0.196, 2.847)) in the ITT and 1.67 (95% CI: -0.134, 3.468) in the symptomatic subset. Conclusions: Comparable item health state shifts at W24 and similar improvements in mean TSS as shown by MMRM, with a minimal between-group difference of 1.52 on the 70 point scale in context of an 8-point MCT suggest MMB provides clinically relevant and comparable symptom improvements to RUX; these analyses require further validation in independent data sets. Imbalance in BL symptom scores in MMB subjects may have contributed to the inability to demonstrate non-inferiority in TSS response rate at W24. Clinical trial information: NCT01969838.

133 Background: The genomic classifier, Decipher, has been validated to predict risk of metastasis after radical prostatectomy (RP). However, the cohort size and event rate in the previous studies did not allow for a thorough investigation into performance within individual clinicopathologic or treatment subgroups. In this study, we present the first meta-analysis of the performance of the 22-marker genomic classifier in men with prostate cancer (PCa) post-RP. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Decipher genomic resource information database were searched for published reports of men with PCa treated by RP between 2010 and 2016 where the benefit of the Decipher genomic classifier test was assessed. The primary end point was the ability of Decipher to independently improve prognostication of regional or distant metastasis over routine clinicopathologic factors. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects modeling, and extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined with the I2 test. Results: Five studies (975 total patients, and 855 with individual patient genomic and clinicopathologic data) were eligible for analysis. The median follow-up was 8 years. All patients had clinical high-risk disease, yet 60.9%, 22.6%, and 16.5% of patients were classified as low, intermediate, and high-risk, respectively by Decipher and had 10-year cumulative incidence rates of metastases of 5.5%, 15.0% and 26.7% (p < 0.001), respectively. Adjusting for standard clinicopathologic variables, on multivariable analysis Decipher remained a statistically significant predictor of metastasis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.30 per 0.1 unit, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.47, p < 0.001), and the summary HR for metastasis of Decipher across the 5 studies was 1.52 (95% CI 1.39-1.67) per 0.1 unit. Conclusions: The genomic classifier test, Decipher, has the ability to independently improve prognostication of men post-RP, as well as within nearly all clinicopathologic and treatment subgroups. Strong consideration should be given to incorporating the use of genomic testing in clinical decision making and clinical trials to better individualize treatment.