Mesa, Ruben A.

LBA7006 Background: PAC is a potent JAK2 inhibitor without significant JAK1 inhibition with minimal myelosuppression in early-phase studies in MF. Methods: The efficacy and safety of daily oral PAC was compared to BAT (2:1 randomization stratified for risk and platelet count). The 10 endpoint was the proportion of ITT patients (pts) achieving ≥ 35% spleen volume reduction (SVR) at week (wk) 24 by centrally reviewed MRI or CT. Secondary endpoints included the proportion achieving ≥ 50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS) at wk 24 using the MPN Symptom Assessment Form. Results: Patients:327 were enrolled (PAC:220, BAT:107), 62% with 10 MF. Median time from diagnosis was 1.12 years (PAC 0.99, BAT 1.60): 32% and 15% had a platelet counts < 100,000/µL or <50,000/ µL; 75% were JAK2V617F positive. Efficacy: The median duration of treatment was 16.2 months PAC and 5.9 months BAT. Sixty-two percent of BAT patients received active disease directed therapy. The SVR rates at week 24 were 19.1% for PAC vs. 4.7% for BAT (p=0.0003) in ITT and 25% vs. 5.9% (p=0.0001) in the evaluable population. 79% of BAT patients crossed over to PAC; 21% had achieved a >35% reduction in spleen volume at data cutoff. TSS composite V1 + V2 response rates were 24.5%for PAC vs. 6.5% for BAT (p<0.0001) by ITT, and were 40.9% vs. 9.9% in evaluable pts (p<0.0001). Efficacy with baseline cytopenias: In pts with <100,000 and <50,000 platelets/μ/L, the SVR rates were 16.7% for PAC vs. 0% for BAT (p=0.009), and 22.9% vs. 0% (p=0.045) by ITT and 23.5% vs. 0% (p=0.007) and 33.3% vs. 0% (p=0.037) in evaluable pts. In RBC transfusion dependent pts, 25.7% of PAC pts became RBC independent vs. 0% of BAT pts (p=0.043). Safety: The most common adverse events (AE) for PAC were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting; (grade 3 were <5%, <1%, <1% respectively). Hematologic AEs were similar between PAC and BAT. Conclusions: This study demonstrated PAC was well tolerated and induced significant and sustained SVR and symptom control even in patients with severe thrombocytopenia. PAC therapy resulted in RBC transfusion independence in a significant proportion of pts. Clinical trial information: NCT01773187.

SummarySimtuzumab, a monoclonal antibody inhibitor of extracellular matrix enzyme lysyl oxidase‐like‐2, showed preclinical promise and was well tolerated in clinical studies. A phase 2, open‐label study of simtuzumab was conducted in patients with primary myelofibrosis (MF), post‐polycythaemia vera MF and post‐essential thrombocythaemia MF. Fifty‐four patients were randomized to receive simtuzumab alone (200 or 700 mg [n = 12 each group]) or simtuzumab (200 or 700 mg) with ruxolitinib (n = 15 each group) for 24 weeks. Simtuzumab alone or in combination with ruxolitinib showed no clinical benefit at 24 weeks. The mean serum simtuzumab trough concentrations appeared to increase dose‐proportionally between the 200‐mg and 700‐mg treatment groups. Therapy‐related serious adverse events were pyrexia, pain in extremity (both in 1 patient) and infusion reaction (in another patient). Bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) score was reduced at 24 weeks in 2 patients (16·7%) in the simtuzumab 700‐mg group, 1 (6·7%) in the simtuzumab 200‐mg + ruxolitinib group, and 2 (13·3%) in the simtuzumab 700‐mg + ruxolitinib group; similar numbers of patients had increased BMF. Simtuzumab alone or with ruxolitinib was well tolerated but did not produce clinical benefit nor consistently reduce BMF in patients with MF by 24 weeks.

SummaryThe randomized, double‐blind, double‐dummy, phase 3b RELIEF trial evaluated polycythaemia vera (PV)‐related symptoms in patients who were well controlled with a stable dose of hydroxycarbamide (also termed hydroxyurea) but reported PV‐related symptoms. Patients were randomized 1:1 to ruxolitinib 10 mg BID (n = 54) or hydroxycarbamide (prerandomization dose/schedule; n = 56); crossover to ruxolitinib was permitted after Week 16. The primary endpoint, ≥50% improvement from baseline in myeloproliferative neoplasm ‐symptom assessment form total symptom score cytokine symptom cluster (TSS‐C; sum of tiredness, itching, muscle aches, night sweats, and sweats while awake) at Week 16, was achieved by 43·4% vs. 29·6% of ruxolitinib‐ and hydroxycarbamide‐treated patients, respectively (odds ratio, 1·82; 95% confidence interval, 0·82–4·04; P = 0·139). The primary endpoint was achieved by 34% of a subgroup who maintained their hydroxycarbamide dose from baseline to Weeks 13–16. In a post hoc analysis, the primary endpoint was achieved by more patients with stable screening‐to‐baseline TSS‐C scores (ratio ≤ 2) receiving ruxolitinib than hydroxycarbamide (47·4% vs. 25·0%; P = 0·0346). Ruxolitinib treatment after unblinding was associated with continued symptom score improvements. Adverse events were primarily grades 1/2 with no unexpected safety signals. Ruxolitinib was associated with a nonsignificant trend towards improved PV‐related symptoms versus hydroxycarbamide, although an unexpectedly large proportion of patients who maintained their hydroxycarbamide dose reported symptom improvement.

BACKGROUNDThis analysis of the myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) Landmark survey evaluated gaps between patient perceptions of their disease management and physician self‐reported practices.METHODSThe survey included 813 patient respondents who had MPNs (myelofibrosis [MF], polycythemia vera [PV], or essential thrombocythemia [ET]) and 457 hematologist/oncologist respondents who treated patients with these conditions.RESULTSGreater proportions of physician respondents reported using prognostic risk classifications (MF, 83%; PV, 59%; ET, 77%) compared with patient recollections (MF, 54%; PV, 17%; ET, 31%). Most physician respondents reported that their typical symptom assessments included asking patients about the most important symptoms or a full list of symptoms, whereas many patient respondents reported less specific assessments (eg, they were asked how they were feeling). Many patient respondents did not recognize common symptoms as MPN‐related. For example, approximately one‐half or more did not believe difficulty sleeping resulted from their MPN (MF, 49%; PV, 64%; ET, 76%). Physician respondents underestimated the proportion of patients who had symptomatic PV or ET at diagnosis compared with patient respondents. There was discordance regarding treatment goals: among patient respondents with MF or PV, “slow/delay progression of condition” was the most important treatment goal, whereas physician respondents reported “symptom improvement” and “prevention of vascular/thrombotic events,” respectively. Finally, more than one‐third of patient respondents were not “very satisfied” with their physician's overall management/communication.CONCLUSIONSThe care and satisfaction of patients with MPN may be improved with increased patient education and improved patient‐physician communication. Cancer 2017;123:449–458. © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.

Abstract A 69-year-old man presents with a Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) intermediate-risk 2 post polycythemia vera myelofibrosis with significant splenomegaly, 30 pound weight loss, constitutional symptoms, and 2% peripheral blood blasts. He has no other significant past medical history and no other major comorbid conditions. You are asked by the hematology fellow you are supervising whether or not treating this patient with a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor will decrease major morbid events.

Purpose: Essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera, and myelofibrosis are rare chronic hematological malignancies known as myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and are characterized by deregulated myeloid lineage cell production, splenomegaly, and heterogeneous symptom profiles. MPN patients suffer from a significant symptom burden (eg, fatigue, depressive symptoms, early satiety) and an impaired overall quality of life (QoL). Current treatments typically include pharmacological approaches, which may come with additional side effects and may be limited by treatment-associated toxicities (ie, cytopenias). Nonpharmacological approaches such as physical activity may be beneficial for reducing symptom burden and improving QoL. To date, no studies have examined physical activity as a nonpharmacological approach in MPN patients despite preliminary evidence supporting its benefit in other hematological cancers. The purpose of this article is to (1) review the literature related to physical activity and specific hematological cancer subtypes and to (2) make suggestions for future research involving physical activity in MPN patients as a symptom management strategy. Methods: A brief review of studies examining physical activity in leukemias, lymphomas, and myelomas (excluding stem-cell transplant patients) was conducted. Results: There is preliminary evidence to suggest that physical activity may be an effective approach to improve patient-reported outcomes (fatigue, depression, anxiety, sleep), physical fitness (cardiovascular fitness, balance, body composition), and overall QoL in other hematological cancers. Conclusions: Based on encouraging findings in other hematological cancers, future research should examine the feasibility and effectiveness of physical activity in MPN patients.