The use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents with ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis in COMFORT-II: an open-label, phase 3 study assessing efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib versus best available therapy in the treatment of myelofibrosis

BACKGROUND: Anemia is considered a negative prognostic risk factor for survival in patients with myelofibrosis. Most patients with myelofibrosis are anemic, and 35–54 % present with anemia at diagnosis. Ruxolitinib, a potent inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2, was associated with an overall survival benefit and improvements in splenomegaly and patient-reported outcomes in patients with myelofibrosis in the two phase 3 COMFORT studies. Consistent with the ruxolitinib mechanism of action, anemia was a frequently reported adverse event. In clinical practice, anemia is sometimes managed with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). This post hoc analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of concomitant ruxolitinib and ESA administration in patients enrolled in COMFORT-II, an open-label, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib with best available therapy for treatment of myelofibrosis. Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive ruxolitinib 15 or 20 mg twice daily or best available therapy. Spleen volume was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography scan. RESULTS: Thirteen of 146 ruxolitinib-treated patients had concomitant ESA administration (+ESA). The median exposure to ruxolitinib was 114 weeks in the +ESA group and 111 weeks in the overall ruxolitinib arm; the median ruxolitinib dose intensity was 33 mg/day for each group. Six weeks before the first ESA administration, 10 of the 13 patients had grade 3/4 hemoglobin abnormalities. These had improved to grade 2 in 7 of the 13 patients by 6 weeks after the first ESA administration. The rate of packed red blood cell transfusions per month within 12 weeks before and after first ESA administration remained the same in 1 patient, decreased in 2 patients, and increased in 3 patients; 7 patients remained transfusion independent. Reductions in splenomegaly were observed in 69 % of evaluable patients (9/13) following first ESA administration. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of an ESA with ruxolitinib was well tolerated and did not affect the efficacy of ruxolitinib. Further investigations evaluating the effects of ESAs to alleviate anemia in ruxolitinib-treated patients are warranted (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00934544; July 6, 2009)

Cooperativity of imprinted genes inactivated by acquired chromosome 20q deletions

Large regions of recurrent genomic loss are common in cancers; however, with a few well-characterized exceptions, how they contribute to tumor pathogenesis remains largely obscure. Here we identified primate-restricted imprinting of a gene cluster on chromosome 20 in the region commonly deleted in chronic myeloid malignancies. We showed that a single heterozygous 20q deletion consistently resulted in the complete loss of expression of the imprinted genes L3MBTL1 and SGK2, indicative of a pathogenetic role for loss of the active paternally inherited locus. Concomitant loss of both L3MBTL1 and SGK2 dysregulated erythropoiesis and megakaryopoiesis, 2 lineages commonly affected in chronic myeloid malignancies, with distinct consequences in each lineage. We demonstrated that L3MBTL1 and SGK2 collaborated in the transcriptional regulation of MYC by influencing different aspects of chromatin structure. L3MBTL1 is known to regulate nucleosomal compaction, and we here showed that SGK2 inactivated BRG1, a key ATP-dependent helicase within the SWI/SNF complex that regulates nucleosomal positioning. These results demonstrate a link between an imprinted gene cluster and malignancy, reveal a new pathogenetic mechanism associated with acquired regions of genomic loss, and underline the complex molecular and cellular consequences of “simple” cancer-associated chromosome deletions

RBC-transfusion guidelines update

N

What are RBC-transfusion-dependence and -independence?

The term RBC-transfusion-dependence is widely-used by hematologists to describe a condition of severe anemia typically arising when erythropoiesis is reduced such that a person continuously requires 651 RBC-transfusions over a specified interval. Defining a person as RBC-transfusion-dependent has important implications in diverse hematological disorders especially because it strongly-correlated with decreased survival. Conversely, becoming RBC-transfusion-independent or receiving fewer RBC-transfusions over a specified interval is defined as improvement or response in many disease- and/or therapy-setting. Whether this correlates with improved survival is controversial. We used a structured expert-panel consensus panel process to define RBC-transfusion-dependence and -independence or improvement. We suggest these definitions may prove useful to persons studying or treating these diseases

Response criteria for essential thrombocythemia and polycythemia vera: result of a European LeukemiaNet consensus conference.

European experts were convened to develop a definition of response to treatment in polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET). Clinicohematologic (CH), molecular, and histologic response categories were selected. In ET, CH complete response (CR) was: platelet count less than or equal to 400 x 109/L, no disease-related symptoms, normal spleen size, and white blood cell count less than or equal to 10 x 109/L. Platelet count less than or equal to 600 x 109/L or a decrease greater than 50% was partial response (PR). In PV, CH-CR was: hematocrit less than 45% without phlebotomy, platelet count less than or equal to 400 x 109/L, white blood cell count less than or equal to 10 x 109/L, and no disease-related symptoms. A hematocrit less than 45% without phlebotomy or response in 3 or more of the other criteria was defined as PR. In both ET and in PV, molecular CR was a reduction of any molecular abnormality to undetectable levels. Molecular PR was defined as a reduction more than or equal to 50% in patients with less than 50% mutant allele burden, or a reduction more than or equal to 25% in patients with more than 50% mutant allele burden. Bone marrow histologic response in ET was judged on megakaryocyte hyperplasia while on cellularity and reticulin fibrosis in PV. The combined use of these response definitions should help standardize the design and reporting of clinical studies

Changes in bone marrow fibrosis during momelotinib or ruxolitinib therapy do not correlate with efficacy outcomes in patients with myelofibrosis

Bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) is a pathological feature of myelofibrosis, with higher grades associated with poor prognosis. Limited data exist on the association between outcomes and BMF changes. We present BMF data from Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor-naive patients from SIMPLIFY-1 (NCT01969838), a double-blind, randomized, phase 3 study of momelotinib vs ruxolitinib. Baseline and week 24 bone marrow biopsies were graded from 0 to 3 as per World Health Organization criteria. Other assessments included Total Symptom Score, spleen volume, transfusion independence status, and hemoglobin levels. Paired samples were available from 144 and 160 patients randomized to momelotinib and ruxolitinib. With momelotinib and ruxolitinib, transfusion independence was achieved by 87% and 44% of patients with BMF improvement of ≥1 grade and 76% and 56% of those with stable/worsening BMF; there was no association between BMF changes and transfusion independence for either arm (momelotinib, p = .350; ruxolitinib, p = .096). Regardless of BMF changes, hemoglobin levels also generally increased on momelotinib but decreased on ruxolitinib. In addition, no associations between BMF changes and spleen (momelotinib, p = .126; ruxolitinib, p = .407)/symptom (momelotinib, p = .617; ruxolitinib, p = .833) outcomes were noted, and no improvement in overall survival was observed with ≥1-grade BMF improvement (momelotinib, p = .395; ruxolitinib, p = .407). These data suggest that the anemia benefit of momelotinib is not linked to BMF changes, and question the use of BMF assessment as a surrogate marker for clinical benefit with JAK inhibitors. </p