Hepatic Veno-Occlusive Disease following Stem Cell Transplantation: Incidence, Clinical Course, and Outcome

The occurrence of hepatic veno-occlusive disease (VOD) has been reported in up to 60% of patients following stem cell transplantation (SCT), with incidence varying widely between studies depending on the type of transplant, conditioning regimen, and criteria used to make the diagnosis. Severe VOD is characterized by high mortality and progression to multiorgan failure (MOF); however, there is no consensus on how to evaluate severity. This review and analysis of published reports attempts to clarify these issues by calculating the overall mean incidence of VOD and mortality from severe VOD, examining the effect of changes in SCT practice on the incidence of VOD over time, and discussing the methods used to evaluate severity. Across 135 studies performed between 1979 and October 2007, the overall mean incidence of VOD was 13.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]=13.3%-14.1%). The mean incidence of VOD was significantly lower between 1979-1994 than between 1994-2007 (11.5% [95% CI, 10.9%-12.1%] vs 14.6% [95% CI, 14.0%-15.2%]; P <.05). The mortality rate from severe VOD was 84.3% (95% CI, 79.6%-88.9%); most of these patients had MOF, which also was the most frequent cause of death. Thus, VOD is less common than early reports suggested, but the current incidence appears to be relatively stable despite recent advances in SCT, including the advent of reduced-intensity conditioning. The evolution of MOF in the setting of VOD after SCT can be considered a reliable indication of severity and a predictor of poor outcome

Exploring Genotype: Phenotype Correlations at Baseline and at One Year for ET and PV Patients in the Majic Study

The myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) polycythaemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythaemia (ET) are associated with significant symptom burden with impaired quality of life (QoL). In the MAJIC study patients refractory/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC), were randomised to treatment with ruxolitinib (Rux) or best available therapy (BAT). In this unique and comprehensive analysis we explore quality of life (QoL) outcomes in the MAJIC study using the MPN10 Self-Assessment Form (SAF) in particular using this unique dataset to explore for the first time differences between JAK2 ET vs PV, and JAK2 ET vs CALR ET at baseline and 12 months of therapy with Rux or BAT. Methods 306 patients were randomised, (190, PV and 116 ET arm) and followed for 5 years, no cross over was permitted. MPN10 SAF was assessed at baseline, 2, 4, 8 and 12 months in both arms. Equal variance two sample t-tests were used to test differences between diagnosis groups (JAK2 ET vs PV & JAK2 ET vs CALR ET) in baseline scores and 12-month change from baseline scores, here negative change from baseline indicates improvement. QoL data was also collected using MD Anderson Symptoms Inventory (MDASI) and 5 level EQ5D at the same time points as the MPN10 SAF. Results JAK2 ET vs PV 110 participants with JAK2 mutation were included in the analysis for JAK2 ET vs PV. 81 (74%) had PV and 29 (26%) had JAK2 ET; 44 patients (54.3%) with PV and 18 (62.1%) patients with ET were randomised to Rux, and 37 (45.6%) patients with PV and 11 (37.9%) with ET to BAT. Baseline mean total symptom score (TSS) was similar (JAK2 ET: 18.9. SD 18.4 and PV: 23.7, SD 17.81 (p=0.27). Mean for pruritus was 1.9 (SD 2.47) in JAK2 ET and 3.5 (SD 2.99) in PV (p=0.03). Other baseline scores were comparable: mean scores for fatigue was 3.3 (SD 3.07) for JAK2 ET vs 4.7 (SD 2.68) for PV, for early satiety was 2.6 (SD 2.78) for JAK2 ET vs 2.1 (SD 2.40) for PV, for abdominal discomfort 3.0 (SD 3.34) for JAK2 ET vs 2.0 (SD 2.78) for PV, for inactivity was 2.4 (SD 2.86) for JAK2 ET vs 3.2 (SD 2.72) for PV; for concentration problems was 2.2 (SD 2.51) for JAK2 ET vs 2.9 (SD 3.11) for PV, for night sweats was 1.6 (SD 2.20) for JAK2 ET vs 2.1 (SD 2.66) for PV, for bone pain was 1.8 (SD 2.97) for JAK2 ET vs 2.0 (SD 2.86) for PV, for fever was 0.5 (SD 1.46) for JAK2 ET vs 0.5 (SD 1.70) for PV and for weight loss was 0.3 (SD 0.73) for JAK2 ET vs 1.0 (SD 2.15) for PV (p>0.05 for all). Concerning change at 12 months, mean (SD) change in TSS was -0.5 (SD 10.86) for JAK2 ET (n=21) vs -0.8 (SD 13.32) for PV (n=66) (P=0.93). Mean for individual symptom scores at 12 months were also not significantly different between the two phenotypic disease group (P>0.05 for all parameters). (Fig 1, top panels). CALR vs JAK2 ET Exploring symptoms for CALR vs JAK2 ET: 45 patients were included; 9/16 (56.3%) CALR and 18/29 (62.1%) JAK2 patients were assigned to Rux (p=0.70). 10/16 (62.5%) CALR ET and 19/29 (65.5%) JAK2 ET. Baseline mean total symptom score (TSS) was similar (JAK2 ET: 18.9, SD 18.4 and CALR ET: 18.8, SD 16.99 (p=0. 0.98). All other baseline scores were comparable in this intolerant/ refractory population (p>0.05 for all. Concerning change at 12 months, mean (SD) change in TSS was -0.5 (SD 10.86) for JAK2 ET vs -2.8 (SD 9.96) for CALR ET (P=0.56). Mean for individual symptom scores at 12 months were also not significantly different between the two phenotypic disease group (P>0.05 for all parameters); the mean change in night sweats approached but did not reach significance similar (JAK2 ET: 0.2 (SD 1.89) and CALR ET: 1.8 (SD 3.07) (p=0. 0.06). (Fig 1, lower panels). Preliminary analysis of the MDASI and EQ5D-5L data at baseline and at 12 months shows similar results and will be presented. Conclusion This first analysis of its kind compared the symptom burden and other parameters of QoL of patients with PV and ET, resistant/intolerant to HC shows that with the exception of pruritus at baseline there were no substantial differences between JAK2 ET or PV. Equally changes in symptom burden across 12 months did ot substantially differ between JAK2 ET or PV. A second analysis of JAK2 vs CALR ET also failed to show substantial differences. This data should be expanded in a larger cohort but supports a symptom continuum of JAK2 ET and PV and also JAK2 vs CALR ET. Figure 1 Disclosures Mead: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Yap: Faron Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Knapper: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Drummond: CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mesa: Pharma: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy; Samus: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding. Scherber: Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. McMullin: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: clinical trial support, Research Funding. Harrison: CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Promedior: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Galacteo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.The article is available via Open Access. Click on the 'Additional link' above to access the full-text.Published version (6 month embargo

Ruxolitinib versus best available therapy for polycythemia vera intolerant or resistant to hydroxycarbamide in a randomized trial

PURPOSE Polycythemia vera (PV) is characterized by JAK/STAT activation, thrombotic/hemorrhagic events, systemic symptoms, and disease transformation. In high-risk PV, ruxolitinib controls blood counts and improves symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS MAJIC-PV is a randomized phase II trial of ruxolitinib versus best available therapy (BAT) in patients resistant/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC-INT/RES). Primary outcome was complete response (CR) within 1 year. Secondary outcomes included duration of response, event-free survival (EFS), symptom, and molecular response. RESULTS One hundred eighty patients were randomly assigned. CR was achieved in 40 (43%) patients on ruxolitinib versus 23 (26%) on BAT (odds ratio, 2.12; 90% CI, 1.25 to 3.60; P = .02). Duration of CR was superior for ruxolitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.61; P < .001). Symptom responses were better with ruxolitinib and durable. EFS (major thrombosis, hemorrhage, transformation, and death) was superior for patients attaining CR within 1 year (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.78; P = .01); and those on ruxolitinib (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94; P = .03). Serial analysis of JAK2V617F variant allele fraction revealed molecular response was more frequent with ruxolitinib and was associated with improved outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS] P = .001, EFS P = .001, overall survival P = .01) and clearance of JAK2V617F stem/progenitor cells. ASXL1 mutations predicted for adverse EFS (HR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.47 to 6.17; P = .003). The safety profile of ruxolitinib was as previously reported. CONCLUSION The MAJIC-PV study demonstrates ruxolitinib treatment benefits HC-INT/RES PV patients with superior CR, and EFS as well as molecular response; importantly also demonstrating for the first time, to our knowledge, that molecular response is linked to EFS, PFS, and OS