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

Similar documents
Chi sono i candidati agli inibitori di JAK2

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

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

Intro alla patologia. Giovanni Barosi. Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Pavia

Mielofibrosi: inquadramento dei fattori prognostici

JAK2 Inhibitors for Myeloproliferative Diseases

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

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

Fa#ori prognos,ci e fa#ori predi1vi come guida per un tra#amento individualizzato

MALATTIE MIELOPROLIFERATIVE CRONICHE

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

Current Prognostication in Primary Myelofibrosis

Post-ASH 2015 CML - MPN

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

RESPONSE (NCT )

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

ASBMT MDS/MPN Update Sunil Abhyankar, MD

Polycytemia Vera, Essential Thrombocythemia and Myelofibrosis: prognosis and treatment

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

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

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

JAK inhibitors in Phmyeloproliferative

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

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

Leukemia and subsequent solid tumors among patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms

Myeloproliferative Neoplasms and Myelofibrosis: Evolving Management

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

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

Jeanne Palmer, MD Mayo Clinic, Arizona

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

Evolving Management of Myelofibrosis

J Clin Oncol 29: by American Society of Clinical Oncology INTRODUCTION

Disclosures for Ayalew Tefferi

Presenter Disclosure Information

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

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

MANIFEST Phase 2 Enhancement / Expansion

Update in Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

Transplantation for Myeloproliferative neoplasms in the JAK inh era PARAMESWARAN HARI MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE

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

RESEARCH ARTICLE. Introduction Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

Should Mutational Status in Primary Myelofibrosis (PMF) Guide Therapy..YES!!!

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

Clinical trials with JAK inhibitors for essential thrombocythemia and polycythemia vera

Opinion 9 January 2013

Managing ET in Tiziano Barbui MD

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

Prognostic models in PV and ET

Genetic analysis and preclinical modeling of leukemic transformation of myeloproliferative neoplasms: Implications for therapeutic strategies

OVERALL CLINICAL BENEFIT

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

MPN What's new in the morphological classification, grading of fibrosis and the impact of novel drugs

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

London Cancer. Myelofibrosis guidelines. August Review August Version v1.0. Page 1 of 12

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

The Evolving Role of Transplantation for MPN

Molecular aberrations in MPN. and use in the clinic. Timothy Devos MD PhD

Transplants for MPD and MDS

Opportunities for Optimal Testing in the Myeloproliferative Neoplasms. Curtis A. Hanson, MD

WHO Update to Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

New Therapies for MPNs

Evidence Review Group Report Ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis Erratum

Understanding how Jakafi (ruxolitinib) inhibits* overactive JAK pathway signaling

Disclosures for Ayalew Tefferi

Should Mutation Status in PMF Guide Therapy? No! Brady L. Stein, MD MHS Assistant Professor of Medicine Division of Hematology/Oncology

MDS 101. What is bone marrow? Myelodysplastic Syndrome: Let s build a definition. Dysplastic? Syndrome? 5/22/2014. What does bone marrow do?

Unmet Medical Needs in Myelofibrosis

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

Biologia molecolare delle malattie mieloproliferative croniche Ph1-negative tipiche

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

Ruben A. Mesa, MD & John Camoranio, MD Mayo Clinic

Individualized dosing for Jakafi (ruxolitinib)

Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Myelofibrosis. Outline

The prognostic relevance of serum lactate dehydrogenase and mild bone marrow reticulin fibrosis in essential thrombocythemia

Research Article Real-World Assessment of Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Lower-Risk Myelofibrosis Receiving Treatment with Ruxolitinib

New WHO Classification of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

Corporate Presentation. January 2019

The clinical benefit of ruxolitinib across patient subgroups: analysis of a placebo-controlled, Phase III study in patients with myelofibrosis

HSCT for Myeloproliferative Disorders. Jane Apperley

ASH 2013 Analyst & Investor Event

Polycythemia Vera: From New, Modified Diagnostic Criteria to New Therapeutic Approaches

Brief Communication Diagnostic Hematology

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

MDS-004 Study: REVLIMID (lenalidomide) versus Placebo in Myelodysplastic Syndromes with Deletion (5q) Abnormality

Myelofibrosis a Reference Guide for Journalists

Clinical Perspective The Hematologist s View

Inibitori di JAK2 e trapianto nella mielofibrosi

Novel drugs in MPNs: Histone-Deacetylase Inhibitors

HCT for Myelofibrosis

ASBMT MDS/MPN UPDATE

ASCO 2011: Leukemia. Disclosures

MDS/MPN: What it is and How it Should be Treated?

JAKAFI (ruxolitinib phosphate) oral tablet

Research Article Gender and Vascular Complications in the JAK2 V617F-Positive Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

Published Ahead of Print on January 31, 2014, as doi: /haematol Copyright 2014 Ferrata Storti Foundation.

Piper Jaffray Healthcare Conference

Blast transformation in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia: Risk factors, genetic features, survival, and treatment outcome

Volume 28, Issue 4 Fall 2018 eissn:

Protocol. This trial protocol has been provided by the authors to give readers additional information about their work.

Transcription:

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

DIPSS during f-up IPSS at diagnosis Diagnose MF and genotype JAK2, CALR, MPL LR Int-1 R Int-2 R HR Med OS 11.2 y Med OS 7.9 y Med OS 4 y Med OS 2.2 y LR over time: 85% alive at 20 y Int-1 R over time: Med OS 14.2 y Test additional mutations (ASXL1 first) and assess karyotype to identify patients at higher risk, if younger and fit for stem cell transplant Proceed with treatment strategy Stem cell transplant Ruxolitinib Clinical trials Test additional mutations (ASXL1 first) and assess karyotype only for post transplant monitoring Proceed with treatment strategy Observation Ruxolitinib Clinical trials Stem cell transplant Passamonti et al, COH 2016

DIPSS during f-up IPSS at diagnosis Diagnose MF and genotype JAK2, CALR, MPL LR Int-1 R Int-2 R HR Med OS 11.2 y Med OS 7.9 y Med OS 4 y Med OS 2.2 y LR over time: 85% alive at 20 y Int-1 R over time: Med OS 14.2 y Test additional mutations (ASXL1 first) and assess karyotype to identify patients at higher risk, if younger and fit for stem cell transplant Proceed with treatment strategy Stem cell transplant Ruxolitinib Clinical trials Test additional mutations (ASXL1 first) and assess karyotype only for post transplant monitoring Proceed with treatment strategy Observation Ruxolitinib Clinical trials Stem cell transplant Passamonti et al, COH 2016

Ruxolitinib reduces splenomegaly COMFORT-I (update at 3 yrs) Patients with MF (N = 309) Randomized 1:1 COMFORT-II (update at 3.5 yrs) Patients with MF (N = 219) Randomized 2:1 Ruxolitinib 15-20 mg BID (n=155) Placebo (n=151) Ruxolitinib 15-20 mg BID (n=146) Best available therapy (n=173) Primary Endpoint Number of subjects achieving 35% reduction in spleen volume from baseline to week 24 Secondary Endpoint Proportion of patients with 50% reduction in Total Symptom Score (mod. MFSAF v2.0) Primary Endpoint Number of subjects achieving 35% reduction in spleen volume from baseline to week 48 Secondar/Exploratory endpoints Changes in functioning and symptoms * As measured by MRI/CT scan Verstovsek et al, N Engl J Med 2012;366(9):799-807; Harrison C et al, N Engl J Med 2012;366(9):787-98

Ruxolitinib reduces splenomegaly COMFORT-I (update at 3 yrs) Patients with MF (N = 309) Randomized 1:1 COMFORT-II (update at 3.5 yrs) Patients with MF (N = 219) Randomized 2:1 Ruxolitinib 15-20 mg BID (n=155) Placebo (n=151) Ruxolitinib 15-20 mg BID (n=146) Best available therapy (n=173) Primary Endpoint achieved: 41.9% 0.7% 28.5% 0% * As measured by MRI/CT scan Verstovsek et al, N Engl J Med 2012;366(9):799-807; Harrison C et al, N Engl J Med 2012;366(9):787-98

Ruxolitinib controls symptomatology impacting on quality of life * As assessed by the Modified MFSAF v2.0 Mesa RA et al, J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(10):1285-92

Ruxolitinib improves survival (results from the pooled analysis with 301 RUX-treated and 227 PBO/BAT-treated) HR: 0.29; 95%CI: 0.13-0.63; P=0.01 Curves were obtained after correcting for crossover from the control arms (rank-preserving structural failure time analysis) Vannucchi et al.; Haematologica. 2015 Sep;100(9):1139-45.

Probability Ruxolitinib modifies the natural history of MF Survival estimate from diagnosis of PMF patients treated with ruxolitinib or BAT 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 COMFORT-II cohort DIPSS cohort HR=0.61 P=0.0148 The risk of death might be reduced by ~40% by introducing ruxolitinib in the treatment of PMF patients 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time since diagnosis (years) 30 35 40 Survival estimate from diagnosis of PMF patients who become intermediate-2 and high-risk IPSS with a blast cell count below 10% at any time of their follow-up according to the COMFORT-II (n=100) and DIPSS (N=350) cohorts. The 8-year survival probability from initial diagnosis was 32.2% for COMFORT-II and 15.9% for DIPSS Passamonti F, et al. Blood. 2014;123(12):1833-5.

Response rate of all BAT pa@ents Predictors of response: COMFORT-II Efficacy by Subgroup COMFORT-II: proportion of Patients in Each Subgroup With 35% Reduction in Spleen Volume From Baseline at Week 48 Propor@on of Pa@ents in Each Subgroup With 35% Reduc@on in Spleen Volume From Baseline at Week 48 Response Rate (95% CI) Response Response rates rates were were observed observed for ruxolitinib-treated for ruxoli@nib-treated patients pa@ents in in all all subgroups and and were were higher higher than than patients pa@ents receiving receiving BAT BAT 9

Predictors of response: COMFORT-II: proportion of Patients in Each Subgroup With 35% Reduction in Spleen Volume From Baseline at Week 48 Positive trend (not stat. significant) in favor of : 20 mg BID vs. 15 mg BID, JAK2mut vs JAK2WT

Mul@variate Logis@c Regression Model Predictors of response: Multivariable analysis of the COMFORT-II: proportion of Patients in Each Subgroup With 35% Reduction in Spleen Volume From Baseline at Week 48 Predic@ve Factors for Response at Week 48 Odds Ra' o a 95% CI Star@ng dose (15 vs 20 mg BID) 0.441 (0.184; 1.055) Gender (female vs male) 1.646 (0.726; 3.732) Age ( 65 vs > 65 years) 0.911 (0.389; 2.135) Baseline MF type PMF vs PET-MF 0.237 (0.063; 0.891) Previous hydroxyurea use (no vs yes) 2.521 (0.964; 6.595) Baseline palpable spleen length ( 10 vs > 10 cm) 0.419 (0.166; 1.058) JAK2V617F muta@on (nega@ve vs posi@ve) 0.383 (0.112; 1.310) IWG risk category (high vs intermediate-2 risk) 0.640 (0.268; 1.531) Multivariate analysis suggests: a higher response rate among patients with PET-MF compared with PMF a An odds ratio < 1 indicates a lower chance for response and > 1 indicates a higher chance for response compared with reference. 13

Predictors of response: potential role of JAK2 allele burden 69 MF treated for progressive splenomegaly 83% with PMF 70% with >50% mutant alleles 71% were low-int-1 MF by DIPSS prognostic score The probability of spleen response in patients with a JAK2V617F allele burden 50% was 5.5-fold higher than subjects with JAK2V617F allele burden <50% or any other mutation Barosi et al; Leukemia. 2016 Feb 29. doi: 10.1038/leu.2016.45.

Additional mutation-based risk does not predict response on spleen and symptoms

The more the reduction of JAK2 allele burden, the more the reduction of the splenomegaly

Spleen Reduction by Palpation on Ruxolitinib Implies Survival Advantage 50% reduction <25% reduction Patients with a reduction >50% of spleen size had better survival than those with <25% Verstovsek S et al. Blood 2012;120:1202-1209

Spleen volume reductions at week 24 impact on overall survival (pooled analysis) Vannucchi et al.; Haematologica. 2015 Sep;100(9):1139-45.

Percentage of patients (%) Percentage of patients (%) Anemia and thyrombocytopenia on ruxolitinib Incidence of New Onset Grade 3 or 4 Anemia and Thrombocytopenia Over Time Anemia Thrombocytopenia Ruxolitinib Grade 3 Placebo Grade 3 Ruxolitinib Grade 4 Placebo Grade 4 Ruxolitinib Grade 3 Placebo Grade 3 Ruxolitinib Grade 4 Placebo Grade 4 50 50 45 45 40 40 35 30 29.0 35 30 25 25 20 20 15 10 5 0 9.9 11.5 2.9 0 <6 4.1 3.4 6 <12 4.8 1.9 12 <18 5.3 0 18 <24 0 0 24 15 10 5 0 8.7 3.4 0.7 0 0 <6 1.6 1.6 6 <12 1.9 0.9 12 <18 0 0 18 <24 0 0 24 Months Months All patients receiving placebo at the primary analysis crossed over or discontinued within 3 months of the primary analysis; therefore, data for patients receiving placebo is shown for 0 <6 months only. The incidence of new-onset Grade 3 or 4 anemia and thrombocytopenia decreased over time to levels observed with placebo treatment (prior to crossover) Verstovsek S, et al. Haematologica. 2013;98(12):1865-71.

Infections on ruxolitinib therapy Ruxolitinib randomized 1 extension, % 0-24 (n=146) 24-48 (n=134) 48-72 (n=116) Week 72-96 (n=101) 96-120 (n=93) 120-144 (n=81) 144-168 (n=72) Infections 50.0 35.1 37.9 25.7 43.0 33.3 25.0 Bronchitis 3.4 6.7 8.6 3.0 10.8 4.9 4.2 Gastroenteritis 5.5 3.0 0.9 1.0 2.2 1.2 0 Nasopharyngitis 13.7 5.2 7.8 4.0 10.8 3.7 4.2 Urinary tract infection 4.8 2.2 5.2 4.0 5.4 3.7 2.8 Cervantes F, et al. Blood. 2013 122: 4047-4053

Ruxolitinib at 5 years follow-up (COMFORT-2): efficacy 53% of RUX achieved a 35% reduction in spleen volume from baseline at any time with a median duration of response of 3.2 years. One-third of evaluable JAK2 V617Fpositive pts had a 20% reduction in allele burden at 3.2 years. 16% improved fibrosis; 32% had stable fibrosis, 18% had a worsening at their last assessment. Harrison et al; Blood 2015 126:59; published ahead of print December 4, 2015

Ruxolitinib at 5 years follow-up (COMFORT-2): safety AEs: thrombocytopenia (52%), anemia (49%), diarrhea (35%), and peripheral edema (33%); AEs grade 3-4: anemia (22%), thrombocytopenia (15%), pneumonia (6%), general physical health deterioration (4%), and dyspnea (4%). 8 pts (5.5%) and 5 pts (6.8%) developed leukemia in the RUX and BAT arms, respectively. Harrison et al; Blood 2015 126:59; published ahead of print December 4, 2015

Ruxolitinib at 5 years follow-up (COMFORT-2): survival Overall, 59 (40.4%) and 35 (47.9%) deaths were reported in the RUX and BAT arms, respectively. Median OS was not reached in the RUX arm and was 4.1 years in the BAT arm. There was a 33% reduction in risk of death with RUX compared with BAT (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.44-1.02; P =.06). Harrison et al; Blood 2015 126:59; published ahead of print December 4, 2015

DIPSS during f-up IPSS at diagnosis Diagnose MF and genotype JAK2, CALR, MPL LR Int-1 R Int-2 R HR Med OS 11.2 y Med OS 7.9 y Med OS 4 y Med OS 2.2 y LR over time: 85% alive at 20 y Int-1 R over time: Med OS 14.2 y Test additional mutations (ASXL1 first) and assess karyotype to identify patients at higher risk, if younger and fit for stem cell transplant Proceed with treatment strategy Stem cell transplant Ruxolitinib Clinical trials Test additional mutations (ASXL1 first) and assess karyotype only for post transplant monitoring Proceed with treatment strategy Observation Ruxolitinib Clinical trials Stem cell transplant Passamonti et al, COH 2016

DIPSS during f-up IPSS at diagnosis Diagnose MF and genotype JAK2, CALR, MPL LR Int-1 R Int-2 R HR Med OS 11.2 y Med OS 7.9 y Med OS 4 y Med OS 2.2 y LR over time: 85% alive at 20 y Int-1 R over time: Med OS 14.2 y Test additional mutations (ASXL1 first) and assess karyotype to identify patients at higher risk, if younger and fit for stem cell transplant Proceed with treatment strategy Observation Clinical trials Stem cell transplant (few selected) Proceed with treatment strategy Stem cell transplant Ruxolitinib Clinical trials Test additional mutations (ASXL1 first) and assess karyotype only for post transplant monitoring Passamonti et al, COH 2016

Survival Follow up Re-THINK: Trial Design ReTHINK is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center, phase 3 study of the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in patients with early MF and HMR mutations Screening (Day 40 to Day 1) Period 1 Period 2 MF Patients Ruxolitinib 10 mg bid Ruxolitinib 5/15/20 mg bid Spleen 5 cm below LCM HMR+ (ASXL1, EZH2, SRSF2 or IDHI1/2) N = 320 1:1 PFS-1 a PFS-2 Placebo Ruxolitinib 5/15/20 mg bid Inclusion Population: Hb > 10 g/dl; transfusion Independent ANC > 1, WBC < 15000 Blast < 1% Platelets > 75000 Primary Endpoint: PFS-1 (90 events) Secondary Endpoints PFS-2, Safety &Tolerability, QOL, OS MF-7 15 (individual items 3) a If progression is achieved by spleen or symptoms

Conclusions Ruxolitinib is the treatment of choice in patients with PMF/SMF at intermediate-2 and high risk (IPSS/DIPSS) with spleen and symptoms Patients who obtain a significant spleen reduction improve survival For patients with low-risk disease but carrying a HMR profile, there is a new possibility of treatment: The RE-Think trial