Comparing the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients with Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System low‐, intermediate‐1‐, intermediate‐2‐, and high‐risk myelofibrosis in JUMP, a Phase 3b, expanded‐access study

Ruxolitinib, a potent Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, has demonstrated durable improvements in patients with myelofibrosis. In this analysis of the Phase 3b JUMP study, which included patients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of primary or secondary myelofibrosis, we assessed the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients stratified by Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) risk categories. Baseline characteristic data were available to assess DIPSS status for 1844 of the 2233 enrolled patients; 60, 835, 755, and 194 in the low‐, intermediate (Int)‐1‐, Int‐2‐, and high‐risk groups, respectively. Ruxolitinib was generally well tolerated across all risk groups, with an adverse‐event (AE) profile consistent with previous reports. The most common hematologic AEs were thrombocytopenia and anemia, with highest rates of Grade ≥3 events in high‐risk patients. Approximately, 73% of patients experienced ≥50% reductions in palpable spleen length at any point in the ≤24‐month treatment period, with highest rates in lower‐risk categories (low, 82.1%; Int‐1, 79.3%; Int‐2, 67.1%; high risk, 61.6%). Median time to spleen length reduction was 5.1 weeks and was shortest in lower‐risk patients. Across measures, 40%–57% of patients showed clinically meaningful symptom improvements, which were observed from 4 weeks after treatment initiation and maintained throughout the study. Overall survival (OS) was 92% at Week 72 and 75% at Week 240 (4.6 years). Median OS was longer for Int‐2‐risk than high‐risk patients (253.6 vs. 147.3 weeks), but not evaluable in low‐/Int‐1‐risk patients. By Week 240, progression‐free survival (PFS) and leukemia‐free survival (LFS) rates were higher in lower‐risk patients (PFS: low, 90%; Int‐1, 82%; Int‐2, 46%; high risk, 15%; LFS: low, 92%; Int‐1, 86%; Int‐2, 58%; high risk, 19%). Clinical benefit was seen across risk groups, with more rapid improvements in lower risk patients. Overall, this analysis indicates that ruxolitinib benefits lower‐risk DIPSS patients in addition to higher risk.

[1]  M. Griesshammer,et al.  Primary analysis of JUMP, a phase 3b, expanded‐access study evaluating the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis, including those with low platelet counts , 2020, British journal of haematology.

[2]  M. Talpaz,et al.  Evaluation of an alternative ruxolitinib dosing regimen in patients with myelofibrosis: an open-label phase 2 study , 2018, Journal of Hematology & Oncology.

[3]  R. Latagliata,et al.  Efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in intermediate‐1 IPSS risk myelofibrosis patients: Results from an independent study , 2018, Hematological oncology.

[4]  R. Mesa,et al.  The impact of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) on patient quality of life and productivity: results from the international MPN Landmark survey , 2017, Annals of Hematology.

[5]  R. Fanin,et al.  Baseline factors associated with response to ruxolitinib: an independent study on 408 patients with myelofibrosis , 2017, Oncotarget.

[6]  P. Mazza,et al.  Ruxolitinib – better prognostic impact in low-intermediate 1 risk score: evaluation of the ‘rete ematologica pugliese’ (REP) in primary and secondary myelofibrosis , 2017, Leukemia & lymphoma.

[7]  M. Griesshammer,et al.  Safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in an open-label, multicenter, single-arm phase 3b expanded-access study in patients with myelofibrosis: a snapshot of 1144 patients in the JUMP trial , 2016, Haematologica.

[8]  R. Mesa,et al.  Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) have a significant impact on patients’ overall health and productivity: the MPN Landmark survey , 2016, BMC Cancer.

[9]  K. Davis,et al.  Real-World Assessment of Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Lower-Risk Myelofibrosis Receiving Treatment with Ruxolitinib , 2015, Advances in hematology.

[10]  Francisco Cervantes,et al.  A pooled analysis of overall survival in COMFORT-I and COMFORT-II, 2 randomized phase III trials of ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis , 2015, Haematologica.

[11]  A. Mead,et al.  Response to ruxolitinib in patients with intermediate‐1–, intermediate‐2–, and high‐risk myelofibrosis: results of the UK ROBUST Trial , 2015, British journal of haematology.

[12]  M. Cazzola,et al.  Impact of ruxolitinib on the natural history of primary myelofibrosis: a comparison of the DIPSS and the COMFORT-2 cohorts. , 2014, Blood.

[13]  T. Barbui,et al.  Three-year efficacy, safety, and survival findings from COMFORT-II, a phase 3 study comparing ruxolitinib with best available therapy for myelofibrosis. , 2013, Blood.

[14]  Francisco Cervantes,et al.  Revised response criteria for myelofibrosis: International Working Group-Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT) and European LeukemiaNet (ELN) consensus report. , 2013, Blood.

[15]  H. Kantarjian,et al.  Clinical Benefits of Ruxolitinib Therapy in Myelofibrosis Patients with Varying Degrees of Splenomegaly and Symptoms , 2012 .

[16]  Jason Gotlib,et al.  A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  Francisco Cervantes,et al.  JAK inhibition with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy for myelofibrosis. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  M. Cazzola,et al.  A dynamic prognostic model to predict survival in primary myelofibrosis: a study by the IWG-MRT (International Working Group for Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment). , 2010, Blood.

[19]  C. Bloomfield,et al.  The 2008 revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia: rationale and important changes. , 2009, Blood.

[20]  R. Mesa,et al.  New prognostic scoring system for primary myelofibrosis based on a study of the International Working Group for Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment. , 2008, Blood.

[21]  A. Zimmermann,et al.  Validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lymphoma (FACT-LYM) in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma , 2008 .

[22]  P. Campbell,et al.  Proposed criteria for the diagnosis of post-polycythemia vera and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis: a consensus statement from the international working group for myelofibrosis research and treatment , 2008, Leukemia.

[23]  D. Cella,et al.  Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales. , 2002, Journal of pain and symptom management.