Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA; 14 MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Similar documents
3. Pardanani A, et al. Leukemia 2009;23: Hedvat M, et al. Cancer Cell 2009;16:

PRM 151 in Myelofibrosis: Durable Efficacy and Safety at 72 Weeks

Evolving Guidelines of MPNs Where do new options fit in your treatment plan?

RESPONSE (NCT )

Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; MPN-RC (US), 2 H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center (US), 3

Classical Ph-1neg myeloproliferative neoplasms: Ruxolitinib in myelofibrosis. Francesco Passamonti Università degli Studi dell Insubria, Varese

Myeloproliferative Neoplasms and Myelofibrosis: Evolving Management

Efficacy, safety and survival with ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis: results of a median 2-year follow-up of COMFORT-I

JAK2 Inhibitors for Myeloproliferative Diseases

How I treat high risk myeloproliferative neoplasms. Francesco Passamonti Università dell Insubria Varese - Italy

Should Intermediate-I risk PMF be transplanted immediately or later? Position: Later

Evolving Management of Myelofibrosis

How I Treat Myelofibrosis. Adam Mead, MD, PhD University of Oxford Oxford, United Kingdom

Preliminary Results From a Phase I Dose Escalation Trial of Ruxolitinib and the PI3Kδ Inhibitor TGR-1202 in Myelofibrosis

Sponsor / Company: Sanofi Drug substance(s): SAR302503

MPNs: JAK2 inhibitors & beyond. Mohamed Abdelmooti (MD) NCI, Cairo University, Egypt

OMF. Th. Sliwa 5th Med, Department for Hematology, Ocology an Palliative Care Hietzing Hospital, Vienna Austria

CLINICAL POLICY DEPARTMENT: Medical Management DOCUMENT NAME: JakafiTM REFERENCE NUMBER: NH.PHAR.98

Post-ASH 2015 CML - MPN

Practical Considerations in the Treatment Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Prognostication and Current Treatment Indy Hematology

Evaluation of an alternative ruxolitinib dosing regimen in patients with myelofibrosis: an open-label phase 2 study

Idelalisib in the Treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Sponsor / Company: Sanofi Drug substance(s): SAR According to template: QSD VERSION N 4.0 (07-JUN-2012) Page 1

BR is an established treatment regimen for CLL in the front-line and R/R settings

MALATTIE MIELOPROLIFERATIVE CRONICHE

Chi sono i candidati agli inibitori di JAK2

What is next: Emerging JAK2 inhibitor combination studies. Alessandro M. Vannucchi. Section of Hematology, University of Florence, Italy

[ NASDAQ: MEIP ] Analyst & Investor Event December 8, 2014

New Therapies for MPNs

Mayo Clinic Treatment Strategy in Essential Thrombocythemia, Polycythemia Vera and Myelofibrosis 2013 Update

Novità terapeu-che nelle mala3e mieloprolifera-ve croniche Ph nega-ve. Francesco Passamon- Università dell Insubria Varese - Italy

OVERALL CLINICAL BENEFIT

June Ruxolitinib for the second-line treatment of myelofibrosis (IPSS intermediate LONDON CANCER NEWS DRUGS GROUP RAPID REVIEW

Stifel Nicolaus 2013 Healthcare Conference. John Scarlett, M.D. Chief Executive Officer September 11, 2013

Management of CLL in the Targeted Therapy Era

Duvelisib (IPI-145), a PI3K-δ,γ Inhibitor, is Clinically Active in Patients with Relapsed/ Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Leukemia. Roland B. Walter, MD PhD MS. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center University of Washington

Individualized dosing for Jakafi (ruxolitinib)

Polycytemia Vera, Essential Thrombocythemia and Myelofibrosis: prognosis and treatment

Tolerability and activity of chemo-free triplet combination of umbralisib (TGR-1202), ublituximab, and ibrutinib in patients with advanced CLL and NHL

Back to the future in MPN. Claire Harrison Guy s and St Thomas Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

Clinical trials with JAK inhibitors for essential thrombocythemia and polycythemia vera

Background CPX-351. Lancet J, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(suppl): Abstract 7035.

Title A Phase II study of oral LBH589 in adult patients with refractory cutaneous T-Cell lymphoma

Unmet Medical Needs in Myelofibrosis

Elotuzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody designed to treat multiple myeloma (MM)

Myelofibrosis in Evolution: Novel Standards Of Care and New Challenges in Patient Management

MANIFEST Phase 2 Enhancement / Expansion

How to Integrate the New Drugs into the Management of Multiple Myeloma

What is New in Leukemia & MPN in 2011?

A Phase II Study of the Combination of Oral Rigosertib and Azacitidine in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS)

Drug Niraparib Olaparib

Long-term safety and efficacy of vismodegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC): 24-month update of the pivotal ERIVANCE BCC study

An Overview of US-Based MPN Guidelines: A First Look

Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University New Determinants and Approaches for MPN

ASCO 2011: Leukemia. Disclosures

Il tra'amento delle sindromi mieloprolifera1ve croniche: stato dell arte e scenari futuri A.M. Vannucchi CRIMM, Centro Ricerca e Innovazione delle

Highlights in myeloproliferative neoplasms

pan-canadian Oncology Drug Review Final Clinical Guidance Report Ruxolitinib (Jakavi) for Myelofibrosis January 14, 2013

Supplementary Online Content

This clinical study synopsis is provided in line with Boehringer Ingelheim s Policy on Transparency and Publication of Clinical Study Data.

Managing ET in Tiziano Barbui MD

Daratumumab: Mechanism of Action

IDH1 AND IDH2 MUTATIONS

Karcinom dojke. PANEL: Semir Bešlija, Zdenka Gojković, Robert Šeparović, Tajana Silovski

DYNAMO: A PHASE 2 STUDY OF DUVELISIB IN PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY INDOLENT NON HODGKIN LYMPHOMA

H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco & Tisch Cancer Institute, Mount Sinai School of Medicine

A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Ruxolitinib for Myelofibrosis

JAK inhibitors in Phmyeloproliferative

At Fox Chase Cancer Centre during study participation

Optimizing management of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis: the need for individualized dosing

Disclosures. Consultancy, Research Funding and Speakers Bureau: Celgene Corporation, Millennium, Onyx, Cephalon

Charting the path from pioneering biology to impactful therapeutics

Nilotinib AEs (adverse events) in CML population:

Welcome to Master Class for Oncologists. Session 3: 9:15 AM - 10:00 AM

ENASIDENIB IN MUTANT-IDH2 RELAPSED OR REFRACTORY ACUTE MYELOID LEUKEMIA (R/R AML): RESULTS OF A PHASE 1 DOSE- ESCALATION AND EXPANSION STUDY

Safe Harbor Statement

Chronic myeloid leukemia and myeloproliferative neoplasms. Gregor Verhoef 16th Post-ASH Meeting Friday 10 January 2014

Recent advances in the management of metastatic breast cancer in older adults

eastern cooperative oncology group Michael Williams, Fangxin Hong, Brad Kahl, Randy Gascoyne, Lynne Wagner, John Krauss, Sandra Horning

First-Line Ribociclib + Letrozole for Postmenopausal Women With HR+, HER2-, Advanced Breast Cancer: First Results From the Phase III MONALEESA-2 Study

Phase 1/2 study of pacritinib, a next generation JAK2/FLT3 inhibitor, in myelofibrosis or other myeloid malignancies

Dr Shankara Paneesha. ASH Highlights Department of Haematology & Stem cell Transplantation

Clinical Study Synopsis

Jeanne Palmer, MD Mayo Clinic, Arizona

A PHASE 1 STUDY OF TRC105 (ANTI- ADVANCED SOLID TUMORS

Polycythemia Vera: Aligning Real-World Practices With Current Best Practices

Lung Cancer Case. Since the patient was symptomatic, a targeted panel was sent. ALK FISH returned in 2 days and was positive.

Disclosure Slide. Research Support: Onconova Therapeutics, Celgene

On Behalf of the SGI-110 Investigative Team

Study No Title : Rationale: Phase: Study Period: Study Design: Centres: Indication: Treatment:

pcodr EXPERT REVIEW COMMITTEE (perc) INITIAL RECOMMENDATION

Background. Approved by FDA and EMEA for CLL and allows for treatment without chemotherapy in all lines of therapy

Is the Development of JAK2 Inhibitors an Important Advance in the Treatment of MPNs?

CLINICAL STUDY REPORT SYNOPSIS

JAKAFI (ruxolitinib phosphate) oral tablet

NASDAQ: TGTX Jefferies Healthcare Conference June 2015

2013 Congress of the European Hematology Association Abstract 4398

Transcription:

RESULTS OF THE PERSIST-2 PHASE 3 STUDY OF PACRITINIB (PAC) VERSUS BEST AVAILABLE THERAPY (BAT), INCLUDING RUXOLITINIB (RUX), IN PATIENTS WITH MYELOFIBROSIS (MF) AND PLATELET COUNTS 100,000/µL John Mascarenhas 1, Ronald Hoffman 1, Moshe Talpaz 2, Aaron T. Gerds 3, Brady Stein 4, Vikas Gupta 5, Anita Szoke 6, Mark Drummond 7, Alexander Pristupa 8, Tanya Granston 9, Robert Daly 9, James P. Dean 9, Suliman Al-Fayoumi 9, Jennifer A. Callahan 9, Jack W. Singer 9, Jason Gotlib 10, Catriona Jamieson 11, Claire Harrison 12, Ruben Mesa 13, Srdan Verstovsek 14 1 Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; 2 University of Michigan, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 3 Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; 4 Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA; 5 Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 6 Albert Szent-Györgyi Clinical Center, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary; 7 Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK; 8 Ryazan s Clinical Hospital, Ryazan, Russia; 9 CTI BioPharma Corp., Seattle, WA, USA; 10 Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA; 11 University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; 12 Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London UK; 13 Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA; 14 MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Background MF is a life-threatening hematologic malignancy characterized by splenomegaly and debilitating constitutional symptoms 1-3 ~1/4 of MF pts present with thrombocytopenia; 4 platelets <50,000/µL associated with reduced QoL, 1 more severe symptom burden, and shorter overall survival 5 Approved JAK1/2 inhibitor RUX reduces splenomegaly and symptoms, but is associated with dose-limiting cytopenias and not indicated for pts with platelets <50,000/µL 6,7 PAC: oral kinase inhibitor with specificity for JAK2, FLT3, IRAK1, & CSF1R 8 PERSIST-1 trial: sustained spleen volume reduction (SVR) and symptom control with PAC vs BAT (excluding JAK2 inhibitors) in pts with MF regardless of baseline platelet count 9 PAC placed on full clinical hold by the US FDA (2/8/2016) due to concerns over interim survival results, bleeding, and cardiovascular events 1. Tefferi A, et al. Blood. 2013;122:1395-1398. 2. Mesa et al. Cancer. 2007;109:68-76. 3. Geyer HL, et al. Blood. 2014;124:3529-3537. 4. Tefferi A, et al. Mayo Clinic Proc. 2012;87:25-33. 5. Alhuraiji A, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(suppl):abstract 7068. 6. Harrison C, et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:787-798. 7. Verstovsek S, et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:799-807. 8. Hart S, et al. Leukemia. 2011;25:1751-1759. 9. Mesa RA, et al. ASCO 2015. Abstract LBA7006.

1:1:1 Randomization (N = 311) PERSIST-2 Phase 3 Study Design Key Eligibility Criteria Primary/ secondary MF Platelets 100,000/µL, Prior JAK2 inhibitors allowed PAC 400 mg QD PAC 200 mg BID BAT (including RUX) Co-Primary Endpoints (Wk 24) % of pts achieving 35% SVR and % of pts achieving 50% reduction in TSS* *TSS, total symptom score by MPN-SAF 2.0 In PK simulations, PAC 200 mg BID was predicted to have higher C min and lower C max than PAC 400 QD Crossover from BAT allowed after progression (any time) or at Wk 24 Study Objectives: Primary: efficacy of pooled QD and BID PAC vs BAT Secondary: efficacy of QD PAC or BID PAC separately vs BAT PK, pharmacokinetics; PPV, post-polycythemia; PET, post-essential thrombocythemia.

Patient Demographics (ITT Efficacy Population*) Characteristic Median age, yrs (range) 65 yrs, n (%) PAC QD n=75 69 (39-85) 53 (71) PAC BID n=74 67 (39-85) 46 (62) BAT n=72 69 (32-83) 51 (71) Male, n (%) 38 (51) 48 (65) 39 (54) ECOG PS, n (%) 0-1 2-3 MF diagnosis, n (%) Primary PPV PET DIPSS risk category, n (%) Int-1 Int-2 High 57 (76) 17 (23) 46 (61) 16 (21) 13 (17) 13 (17) 40 (53) 22 (29) 65 (88) 8 (11) 55 (74) 14 (19) 5 (7) 14 (19) 38 (51) 22 (30) 54 (75) 15 (21) 43 (60) 16 (22) 13 (18) 13 (18) 37 (51) 22 (31) JAK2 V617F positive, n (%) 60 (80) 59 (80) 51 (71) *Included all pts with randomization date that allowed them to contribute data for a wk 24 endpoint (pts randomized prior to September 7, 2015; 22 wks prior to clinical hold)

Patient Demographics (Cont d) (ITT Efficacy Population) Characteristic Median spleen length by physical exam, cm (range) PAC QD n=75 PAC BID n=74 BAT n=72 13 (3-33) 15 (5-32) 13 (2-34) Platelet count <50,000/µL, n (%) 38 (51) 31 (42) 32 (44) Hemoglobin <10 g/dl, n (%) 45 (60) 44 (59) 41 (57) Peripheral blasts category, n (%) 0-<1% 1% 0-<5% 5% Missing 41 (55) 30 (40) 62 (83) 9 (12) 4 (5) 38 (51) 30 (41) 61 (82) 7 (9) 6 (8) 36 (50) 31 (43) 60 (83) 7 (10) 5 (7) White blood cell category, n (%) >25 x 10 9 /L 25 x 10 9 /L 15 (20.0) 60 (80.0) 17 (23) 57 (77) 14 (19) 58 (81) Received prior RUX, n (%) 31 (41.3) 31 (42) 33 (46)

Patient Disposition Characteristic PAC QD PAC BID BAT Patients randomized, n 104 107 100 Safety population 104 106 98 ITT efficacy population 75 74 72 Discontinued treatment, n (%) 104 (100) 106 (99) 98 (98) Deaths 5 (5) 2 (2) 5 (5) Adverse events 15 (14) 10 (9) 4 (4) Progressive disease 5 (5) 7 (7) 11 (11) Physician decision (most due to crossover) 5 (5) 3 (3) 41 (41) Withdrawal by pt 9 (9) 5 (5) 4 (4) Other (most due to clinical hold) 65 (63) 79 (74) 33 (33) 50/100 BAT pts crossed over to PAC, 86% at or after Wk 24

Study Treatment Exposure Median exposure, wks (range) PAC QD (N=104) Dose modifications due to AEs, n (%) Dose interruptions Dose reductions Discontinuations PAC BID (N=106) BAT (N=98) 23 (1-82) 25 (1-84) 21 (1-56) 39 (38) 21 (20) 20 (19) 29 (27) 13 (12) 16 (15) 10 (10) 7 (7) 12 (12) The most common BATs were RUX (45%) and hydroxyurea (19%) 19% of BAT patients had watch and wait only

Efficacy Summary Endpoint Statistics PAC QD+BID (n=149) PAC QD (n=75) PAC BID (n=74) BAT (n=72) Patients with 35% SVR from BL to Wk 24 Patients with 50% reduction in TSS from BL to Wk 24 n (%) 27 (18.1) 11 (14.7) 16 (21.6) 2 (2.8) 95% CI* 12.3-25.3 7.6-24.7 12.9-32.7 0.3-9.7 P value vs BAT 0.001 0.017 0.001 - n (%) 37 (24.8) 13 (17.3) 24 (32.4) 10 (13.9) 95% CI* 18.1-32.6 9.6-27.8 22.0-44.3 6.9-24.1 P value vs BAT 0.079 0.652 0.011 - *Clopper-Pearson method.

Efficacy: Analysis by Arm RUX (n=22) Other (n=28) RUX (n=22) Other (n=29)

Forest Plots for SVR

Changes in Individual Symptom Scores per MPN-SAF TSS 2.0

Global Impression of Change

Overall Survival (Censored at Date of Clinical Hold) Overall Survival PAC QD (n=104) PAC BID (n=107) BAT (n=100) Events, n (%) 15 (14) 10 (9) 14 (14) Log-rank P value, vs BAT 0.662 0.346 - HR (95% CI), vs BAT 1.18 (0.57-2.44) 0.68 (0.30-1.53) -

RBC Transfusions Patients treated with PAC had lower RBC transfusion requirements than those treated with BAT at Week 12 and Week 24 RBC, red blood cell.

Percent Change in Platelet Count - Baseline Platelets <50,000/µL* *Based on central laboratory values.

Most Common TEAEs ( 10%) Characteristic PAC QD n=104 PAC BID n=106 BAT n=98 Pts with 1 TEAE 104 (100) 100 (94) 87 (89) Diarrhea 70 (67) 51 (48) 15 (15) Nausea 39 (38) 34 (32) 11 (11) Thrombocytopenia 34 (33) 36 (34) 23 (23) Anemia 29 (28) 25 (24) 15 (15) Vomiting 22 (21) 20 (19) 5 (5) Fatigue 18 (17) 18 (17) 16 (16) Peripheral edema 14 (13) 21 (20) 15 (15) Dizziness 15 (14) 16 (15) 5 (5) Abdominal pain 20 (19) 10 (9) 19 (19) Pyrexia 11 (11) 16 (15) 3 (3) Decreased appetite 13 (13) 13 (12) 11 (11) Epistaxis 11 (11) 13 (12) 13 (13) Constipation 15 (14) 8 (8) 6 (6) Insomnia 12 (12) 10 (9) 4 (4) Pruritus 10 (10) 11 (10) 6 (6) Cough 11 (11) 9 (8) 10 (10) Dyspnea 9 (9) 11 (10) 9 (9) Upper respiratory tract infection 8 (8) 11 (10) 6 (6)

Serious TEAEs PAC QD n=104 PAC BID n=106 BAT n=98 Any SAE, n (%) 48 (46) 50 (47) 30 (31) Most common SAEs ( 5 in any arm), n (%) Anemia 5 (5) 8 (8) 3 (3) Thrombocytopenia 2 (2) 6 (6) 2 (2) Pneumonia 5 (5) 6 (6) 4 (4) Renal failure, acute 5 (5) 2 (2) 2 (2) SAEs of interest, n (%) CHF 1 (1) 4 (4) 2 (2) Atrial fibrillation 3 (3) 0 3 (3) Cardiac arrest 2 (2) 0 0 Epistaxis 2 (2) 2 (2) 1 (1) Subdural hematoma 2 (2) 0 0

Summary of Deaths PAC QD n=104 PAC BID n=107 BAT* n=100 ITT, censored at the time of full clinical hold Deaths 15 (14) 10 (9) 14 (14) Due to AEs Cardiac AEs Bleeding AEs 8 (8) 2 (2) 0 4 (4) 0 3 (3) 6 (6) 2 (2) 1 (1) Due to PD 5 (5) 5 (5) 7 (7) Other 2 (2) 1 (1) 1 (1) After the full clinical hold Deaths 7 (7) 10 (9) 6 (6) Due to AEs Cardiac AEs Bleeding AEs 3 (3) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 0 1 (1) 2 (2) 0 Due to PD 2 (2) 5 (5) 2 (2) Other 2 (2) 4 (4) 3 (3) *7 of 20 pts who died did so after crossover to PAC; 5 due to AEs (3 cardiac, 1 bleeding, 1 other)

Conclusions Despite study truncation due to the clinical hold: PAC (QD+BID) was significantly more effective than BAT (including RUX) for SVR (p=0.001) and trended toward improved TSS (p=0.079) PAC BID appeared more effective than PAC QD versus BAT for SVR and TSS SVR and TSS responses to PAC BID were consistent across demographic and disease risk characteristics PAC BID appeared to have a better benefit/risk profile than BAT, which included RUX

Acknowledgements We would like to thank all the patients, investigators, and personnel who contributed to this study This study was sponsored by CTI BioPharma, Corp. Editorial assistance funded by CTI BioPharma Corp. was provided by Nexus Global Group Science, LLC (Stacey Rose, PhD)