Gupta, Vikas

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.

Abstract Risk factors for acute GVHD (AGVHD), overall survival, and transplant-related mortality were evaluated in adults receiving allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplants (1999-2005) from HLA-identical sibling donors (SDs; n = 3191) or unrelated donors (URDs; n = 2370) and reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, Minneapolis, MN. To understand the impact of transplant regimen on AGVHD risk, 6 treatment categories were evaluated: (1) myeloablative conditioning (MA) with total body irradiation (TBI) + PBSCs, (2) MA + TBI + BM, (3) MA + nonTBI + PBSCs, (4) MA + nonTBI + BM, (5) reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) + PBSCs, and (6) RIC + BM. The cumulative incidences of grades B-D AGVHD were 39% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37%-41%) in the SD cohort and 59% (95% CI, 57%-61%) in the URD cohort. Patients receiving SD transplants with MA + nonTBI + BM and RIC + PBSCs had significantly lower risks of grades B-D AGVHD than patients in other treatment categories. Those receiving URD transplants with MA + TBI + BM, MA + nonTBI + BM, RIC + BM, or RIC + PBSCs had lower risks of grades B-D AGVHD than those in other treatment categories. The 5-year probabilities of survival were 46% (95% CI, 44%-49%) with SD transplants and 33% (95% CI, 31%-35%) with URD transplants. Conditioning intensity, TBI and graft source have a combined effect on risk of AGVHD that must be considered in deciding on a treatment strategy for individual patients.