Impact of genomic alterations on outcomes in myelofibrosis patients undergoing JAK1/2 inhibitor therapy.

In myelofibrosis (MF), driver mutations in JAK2, MPL, or CALR impact survival and progression to blast phase, with the greatest risk conferred by triple-negative status. Subclonal mutations, including mutations in high-molecular risk (HMR) genes, such as ASXL1, EZH2, IDH1/2, and SRSF2 have also been associated with inferior prognosis. However, data evaluating the impact of next-generation sequencing in MF patients treated with JAK1/2 inhibitors are lacking. Using a 54-gene myeloid panel, we performed targeted sequencing on 100 MF patients treated with ruxolitinib (n = 77) or momelotinib (n = 23) and correlated mutational profiles with treatment outcomes. Ninety-nine patients had at least 1 mutation identified, 46 (46%) had 2 mutations, and 34 (34%) patients had ≥3 mutations. Seventy-nine patients carried a mutation in JAK2V617F, 14 patients had mutations in CALR, 6 patients had an MPL mutation, and 2 patients were triple negative. No mutation was significantly associated with spleen or anemia response. A high Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System score and pretreatment transfusion dependence were associated with a shorter time to treatment failure (TTF), and this association retained significance on multivariable analysis. Patients with ASXL1 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; P = .03) and EZH2 mutations (HR, 2.94; P = .009) and an HMR profile (HR, 2.06; P = .01) had shorter TTF. On multivariate analysis, ASXL1 or EZH2 mutations were independently associated with shorter TTF and overall survival. These findings help identify patients unlikely to have a durable response with current JAK1/2 inhibitors and provide a framework for future studies.

[1]  D. Neuberg,et al.  Prognostic Mutations in Myelodysplastic Syndrome after Stem‐Cell Transplantation , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  A. Tefferi,et al.  Targeted deep sequencing in primary myelofibrosis. , 2016, Blood advances.

[3]  Vikas Gupta,et al.  Myelofibrosis: to transplant or not to transplant? , 2016, Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program.

[4]  K. Gregory,et al.  Myeloproliferative Neoplasms, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. , 2016, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[5]  T. Panzarella,et al.  Effect of Red Blood Cell Transfusion Dependence on the Natural History of Myeloproliferative Neoplasm-Associated Myelofibrosis. , 2015, Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia.

[6]  James Y. Zou Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans , 2015, Nature.

[7]  Gabor T. Marth,et al.  A global reference for human genetic variation , 2015, Nature.

[8]  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.

[9]  M. Griesshammer,et al.  Indication and management of allogeneic stem cell transplantation in primary myelofibrosis: a consensus process by an EBMT/ELN international working group , 2015, Leukemia.

[10]  H. Kantarjian,et al.  Correlation of mutation profile and response in patients with myelofibrosis treated with ruxolitinib. , 2015, Blood.

[11]  A. Tefferi,et al.  Genetic determinants of response and survival in momelotinib-treated patients with myelofibrosis , 2014, Leukemia.

[12]  M. Cazzola,et al.  Clinical effect of driver mutations of JAK2, CALR, or MPL in primary myelofibrosis. , 2014, Blood.

[13]  P. Guglielmelli,et al.  CALR and ASXL1 mutations-based molecular prognostication in primary myelofibrosis: an international study of 570 patients , 2014, Leukemia.

[14]  Vikas Gupta,et al.  Controversies and dilemmas in allogeneic transplantation for myelofibrosis. , 2014, Best practice & research. Clinical haematology.

[15]  Christian Beisel,et al.  Clonal evolution and clinical correlates of somatic mutations in myeloproliferative neoplasms. , 2014, Blood.

[16]  M. Cazzola,et al.  Impact of mutational status on outcomes in myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib in the COMFORT-II study. , 2014, Blood.

[17]  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.

[18]  J. Dipersio,et al.  Efficacy, safety, and survival with ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis: results of a median 3-year follow-up of COMFORT-I , 2013, Haematologica.

[19]  M. Cazzola,et al.  Mutations and prognosis in primary myelofibrosis , 2013, Leukemia.

[20]  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.

[21]  J. Dipersio,et al.  The clinical benefit of ruxolitinib across patient subgroups: analysis of a placebo‐controlled, Phase III study in patients with myelofibrosis , 2013, British journal of haematology.

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

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

[24]  M. Cazzola,et al.  Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) predicts progression to acute myeloid leukemia in primary myelofibrosis. , 2010, Blood.

[25]  M. Cazzola,et al.  The number of prognostically detrimental mutations and prognosis in primary myelofibrosis: an international study of 797 patients , 2014, Leukemia.

[26]  Elizabeth M. Smigielski,et al.  dbSNP: the NCBI database of genetic variation , 2001, Nucleic Acids Res..