Category Archives: Myelofibrosis

Dr Amanam on Criteria for Selecting a JAK Inhibitor in Myelofibrosis

Posted on by

September 23, 2024

Author(s): Idoroenyi Amanam, MD

Idoroenyi Amanam, MD, assistant professor, Division of Leukemia, Department of Hematology & Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, City of Hope, discusses the criteria for selecting JAK inhibitors in the treatment of patients with myelofibrosis.

Ruxolitinib (Jakafi) was the first JAK inhibitor approved for the treatment of myelofibrosis by the FDA in 2011. Amanam notes that this approval was initially based on the agent’s demonstrated benefits in reducing splenomegaly and improving symptom burden, two critical factors that influence treatment outcomes in myelofibrosis. Since then, 3 additional JAK inhibitors have received FDA approval for the treatment of select patients with myelofibrosis: fedratinib (Inrebic) in 2019, pacritinib (Vonjo) in 2022, and momelotinib (Ojjaara) in 2023.

Amanam emphasizes that the ideal candidates for JAK inhibitors are patients experiencing significant symptom burden and splenomegaly. Patients presenting with myelofibrosis, particularly those with moderate to severe spleen enlargement and a high burden of disease-related symptoms, are likely to derive the most benefit from JAK inhibition, he continues.

Conversely, patients who are not experiencing splenomegaly or any symptom burden may have limited therapeutic gain from JAK inhibitors, and the use of these agents in these patients may expose them to unnecessary risks of adverse effects (AEs), he says. The most commonly reported AEs from JAK inhibitor treatment are cytopenias, such as anemia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia, Amanam notes.

To avoid these potential toxicities, Amanam stresses the importance of thorough patient evaluation and symptom assessment when considering JAK inhibitors, as the absence of these key criteria can reduce the overall efficacy of treatment and increase the potential for unnecessary AEs.

In clinical practice, Amanam explains the importance of personalized treatment strategies based on individual patient characteristics and risk profiles, prioritizing those who meet the established clinical benchmarks for symptom relief and splenic volume reduction.

Although JAK inhibitors can offer significant symptomatic relief for appropriately selected patients, they are not universally beneficial for all patients with myelofibrosis and should be used judiciously to optimize clinical outcomes, he concludes.

Read more

Rovadicitinib Bests Hydroxyurea in Myelofibrosis

Posted on by
Erin Clancy

The JAK2 inhibitor rovadicitinib proved more effective than hydroxyurea in patients with JAK inhibitor-naïve, intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis in a phase 2 trial presented at the ESMO Congress 2024.

These results “support the use of rovadicitinib as a new treatment option” for these patients, said study presenter Ling Pan, of West China Hospital, Sichuan University, in Chengdu, China.

The trial (NCT05020652) enrolled 105 patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk primary, post-polycythemia vera, or post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis. All patients had received no prior JAK inhibitor treatment and had palpable splenomegaly.

Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive rovadicitinib at 15 mg twice daily plus placebo (n=72) or hydroxyurea at 0.5 g twice daily plus placebo (n=35). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the arms.

Treatment continued for 24 weeks, at which point patients who achieved a spleen volume reduction of 35% or greater (SVR35) maintained treatment as assigned. Those who had not achieved SVR35 by week 24 received open-label rovadicitinib at 15 mg twice daily until treatment termination criteria were met.

At week 24, the SVR35 rate was 58.33% in the rovadicitinib arm and 22.86% in the hydroxyurea arm (P =.0006). The best spleen response rate during the study period was 63.89% with rovadicitinib and 31.43% with hydroxyurea (P =.0017).

The proportion of patients who achieved a 50% or greater reduction in total symptom score at week 24 was 61.11% with rovadicitinib and 45.71% with hydroxyurea (P =.136). The best symptom response rate during the study period was 77.78% with rovadicitinib and 54.29% with hydroxyurea (P =.0136).

Eighteen patients who initially received hydroxyurea but switched to rovadicitinib after week 24 were included in the safety analysis, so 90 patients were evaluable in the rovadicitinib arm and 35 patients were evaluable in the hydroxyurea arm.

The rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 97.78% in the rovadicitinib arm and 100% in the hydroxyurea arm. The rate of grade 3 or higher TEAEs was 51.11% and 77.14%, respectively. The rate of serious TEAEs was 31.11% and 40.00%, respectively.

The most common grade 3 or higher hematologic TEAEs (in the rovadicitinib and hydroxyurea arms, respectively) were platelet count decrease (20.00% and 17.14%) and anemia (28.89% and 60.00%). The most common grade 3 or higher non-hematologic TEAE was hyperkalemia (6.67%) in the rovadicitinib arm and weight gain (2.86%) in the hydroxyurea arm.

Read more

Patients With Lower-Risk Myelofibrosis May Respond to Jakafi

Posted on by

By Darlene Dobkowski, MA
Fact checked by Ashley Chan

Responses to treatment with Jakafi (ruxolitinib) were more frequent and durable in patients with intermediate-1 risk (low-risk) myelofibrosis, according to findings from a real-world study.

In addition, patients with intermediate-2 (high-risk) myelofibrosis had lower rates of toxicity from Jakafi treatment, as shown in findings from the study published in the journal Cancer.

After six months of treatment with Jakafi, spleen response rates were observed in 26.8% of patients, with symptom response rates in 67.9% of patients with intermediate-1 risk myelofibrosis.

“Splenomegaly (enlarged spleen) and symptoms may be extremely burdensome also in lower-risk patients, with approximately 40% of such patients starting [Jakafi] with a large splenomegaly and a high symptom score,” the study authors wrote. “This finding again supports how the clinical phenotype of [myelofibrosis] should guide the medical therapeutic approach, without being influenced by the prognostic risk category, which, in contrast, is essential instead for the transplant decision.”

Predictors of responses at six months after initiating treatment with Jakafi included no cytopenia (a condition with a lower-than-normal number of blood cells, which can include hemoglobin levels, platelets and white blood cells), no high-molecular-risk mutations and blasts less than 1%. Out of all these factors, high-molecular-risk mutations continued to have a significant association with responses.

According to The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, blasts are immature blood cells that are a result of mutated stem cells multiplying uncontrollably. They do not mature into healthy blood cells, nor do they function as such. Abnormal blasts, over time, can surpass the bone marrow’s production of normal healthy blood cells.

At the start of the study, 595 of the 1,055 patients (56.2%) with myelofibrosis had intermediate-1 risk according to two different scoring systems used to classify risk (Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System and Myelofibrosis Score With Constitutional Symptoms – Peripheral Myeloid Immaturity). Both of these scoring systems take into account certain factors like hemoglobin levels, platelet count, spleen size and symptoms.

The spleen was palpable (meaning that it is enlarged and could be felt through the abdominal wall) at the lower edge of the rib cage at less than 5 centimeters in 5.9% of patients, between 5 and 10 centimeters in 47.4% and greater than 10 centimeters in 39.7%. Of note, 54.1% of patients were highly symptomatic.

Read more

SOHO State of the Art Updates and Next Questions | Choosing and Properly Using a JAK Inhibitor in Myelofibrosis

Posted on by

Michael J. Hochmanm, Colin A. Vale, Anthony M. Hunter

Abstract

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a chronic myeloid neoplasm characterized by myeloproliferation, bone marrow fibrosis, splenomegaly, and constitutional symptoms related to pro-inflammatory cytokine signaling. Biologically, MF is characterized by constitutive activation of JAK-STAT signaling; accordingly, JAK inhibitors have been rationally developed to treat MF. Following the initial approval of ruxolitinib in 2011, three additional agents have been approved: fedratinib, pacritinib, and momelotinib. As these therapies are non-curative, allogeneic stem cell transplantation remains a key treatment modality and patients with MF who are deemed candidates should be referred to a transplant center. This potentially curative but toxic approach is typically reserved for patients with higher-risk disease, and JAK inhibitors are recommended in the pre-transplant setting. JAK inhibitors have proven effective at managing splenomegaly and constitutional symptoms and should be started early in the disease course in patients presenting with these clinical manifestations; asymptomatic patients may initially be followed with close surveillance. Drug-related myelosuppression has been a challenge with initial JAK inhibitors, particularly in patients presenting with a cytopenic phenotype. However, newer agents, namely pacritinib and momelotinib, have proven more effective in this setting and are approved for patients with significant thrombocytopenia and anemia, respectively. Resistance or disease progression is clinically challenging and may be defined by several possible events, such as increasing splenomegaly or progression to accelerated or blast phase disease. However, with multiple JAK inhibitors now approved, sequencing of these agents appears poised to improve outcomes. Additionally, novel JAK inhibitors and JAK inhibitor-based combinations are in clinical development.

Read more

Ruxolitinib Stands Out Among JAK2 Inhibitors for Myelofibrosis

Posted on by

By Targeted Oncology Staff

In this virtual tumor board discussion, experts review the case of a 68-year-old woman diagnosed with primary myelofibrosis. The discussion focuses on recent data and emerging insights to guide clinical decision-making and explore the latest advances in treatment strategies for this challenging disease.

Prithvira J. Bose, MD: What are the first steps you would take for this patient, and how do you view multidisciplinary collaboration?

Julie Huynh-Lu, PA-C: Specific to [The University of Texas] MD Anderson [Cancer Center], the role of the physician assistant or nurse practitioner in the leukemia department is to evaluate the patient. Aside from doing a review of systems, I go over the myeloproliferative neoplasms [MPN] questionnaire with the patients to review any changes in their score. Whether they have started therapy or not, [we determine whether they] need to be on therapy based on their answers.

I do a physical assessment of the patient checking their spleen. We don’t order ultrasounds or CT scans on patients unless we’re unable to palpate due to pain in that area. I’ll measure the spleen size every time the patient comes in with a tape measure.

Having a second set of eyes evaluating the patient [is key] because some questions that I may ask, someone else may not—or the physician may ask questions that I may not know [to ask]. Collaboration among nurses, physician assistants or nurse practitioners, and physicians in compiling patient information ensures the best care for the patient.

We are lucky to have the MPN10 form in the Epic system on our flow sheet, and patients can fill out this form before they check in for their appointment. If they were unable to fill it out, I can go into that flow sheet, ask those questions, and fill it out with them. Then, the score [generates] for each patient.

Read more

Donor Source Does Not Impact Survival for HCT in Myelofibrosis

Posted on by
Vicki Moore, PhD

For patients with myelofibrosis (MF) who received hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), a study showed that overall survival (OS) outcomes at 3 months were similar whether haploidentical or matched unrelated donor (MUD) HCT was used. Study results were published in the journal Blood Advances.

The study was based on data obtained from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry. This analysis of donor trends included data for adults in the registry who received an initial HCT between January 2013 and December 2019 for primary or post-essential thrombocythemia or post-polycythemia vera MF. The study’s primary endpoint was OS.

There were 1597 HCTs identified over the study period. Among these, in 2013 there were 117 HCTs performed, while in 2019 this number had risen to 371. Additionally, the proportion of HCTs that involved haploidentical donors rose from 3% of total HCTs in 2013 to 19% in 2019.

Overall, 1032 patients met eligibility criteria for inclusion in further analyses for this study. Patients whose HCT involved mismatched unrelated donors (MMUDs; 64 patients) had a median age at HCT of 59.3 years, while patients with matched sibling donors (MSDs; 298 patients) had a median age at HCT of 61.4 years, patients with haploidentical donors had a median age of 62.5 years (119 patients), and patients with MUDs had a median age of 63 years (551 patients).

The median follow-up period was 46.5 months (range, 3.7-99.7) in this study. In univariate analyses, the 3-year OS rates were estimated to be 68.8% (95% CI, 63.3-74.1) for recipients of MSD-HCT, 59% (95% CI, 49.7-67.9) for recipients of haploidentical HCT, 61.3% (95% CI, 57.1-65.4) for recipients of MUD-HCT, and 55.2% (95% CI, 42.7-67.4) for recipients of MMUD-HCT (P =.03).

Read more

Real-World Data for Pacritinib Show Improvement in Thrombocytopenia, Anemia in Myelofibrosis

Posted on by

September 10, 2024

Author(s): Jax DiEugenio

Fact checked by: Chris Ryan

Pacritinib (Vonjo) generated improvements in thrombocytopenia and anemia in patients with myelofibrosis treated in the real-world setting, according to data from a retrospective study presented at the 2024 SOHO Annual Meeting.1

Findings showed that patients with a platelet count below 100 x 109/L at baseline (n = 74) experienced an early increase in platelet count following treatment initiation that was maintained throughout the observation period. Additionally, an early increase in median hemoglobin was reported in all patients, and this increase was sustained throughout the observation period. Patients with hemoglobin level of less than 8.0 g/dL at the start of treatment (n = 35) experienced a hemoglobin increase of nearly 1 g/dL by day 30.

Notably, patients who received prior treatment with ruxolitinib (Jakafi; n = 69) experienced an increase in platelet counts and hemoglobin levels following initiation of pacritinib. At baseline, the median platelet count and median hemoglobin level in this population was 91.0 x 109/L and 8.7 g/dL, respectively. At day 360, the median platelet count and median hemoglobin were 97.0 x 109/L and 10.4 g/dL, respectively.

“In addition to spleen and symptom benefits observed in previous clinical trials, real-world outcomes demonstrate stability or improvement in thrombocytopenia and/or anemia in patients with myelofibrosis treated with pacritinib,” lead study author Michael Marrone, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, wrote in a poster presentation of the data. Marrone is an assistant professor in the College of Medicine, Department of Public Health Sciences, at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.

Read more

Managing Ruxolitinib-Associated Liver Toxicity in Patients With Myelofibrosis Requires a Nuanced Approach

Posted on by
September 4, 2024

William J. Hogan, MBBCh, MRCPI

Key Points:

  • Ruxolitinib plays an important role in the treatment of symptomatic myelofibrosis, but its associated toxicities and adverse withdrawal effects can pose a challenge.
  • Myelofibrosis is linked with hepatic dysfunction, and ruxolitinib—despite its associated risks of hepatic transaminitis—may limit inflammation and progressive fibrosis, with liver injury resolution reported after treatment.
  • Overall, management of liver injury related to ruxolitinib depends on the cause and severity.

 

Question: In patients with myelofibrosis, how do you manage liver toxicity from ruxolitinib use beside dose de-escalation?

Answer: Ruxolitinib is a small-molecule JAK1/2 inhibitor that has an established role in the treatment of patients with symptomatic myelofibrosis, hydroxyurea-resistant polycythemia vera, and acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease. It has a potent anti-inflammatory effect that can provide very useful palliation of constitutional symptoms and splenomegaly in patients with myelofibrosis via inhibition of the JAK 1 and 2 pathways, which are involved in the production of inflammatory cytokines and hematopoietic growth factors.1-3 Common toxicities include myelosuppression, hepatic transaminitis, diarrhea, fatigue, headache, and peripheral edema. In patients with advanced myelofibrosis or florid inflammatory states, sudden withdrawal can lead to a systemic inflammatory response syndrome that can precipitate cardiopulmonary decompensation in frail patients, especially those with tenuous cardiopulmonary function, and corticosteroid prophylaxis or treatment may be required.4

In a mouse model of liver injury using carbon tetrachloride, JAK1/2 expression was implicated in progression of liver fibrosis. Inhibition of JAK1/2 downregulates downstream signaling, reduces progression to fibrosis, and even accelerates fibrosis reversal by inhibiting proliferation, migration, and activation of hepatic stellate cells in vitro.5 Myelofibrosis is associated with hepatic dysfunction by several mechanisms, including infiltration by hematopoietic stem cells (ie, extramedullary hematopoiesis [EMH]), portal vein thrombosis, and obliterative portal venopathy. EMH may respond favorably to ruxolitinib, and liver injury resolution after ruxolitinib treatment has been reported in patients with severe liver compromise related to myelofibrosis.6 These findings suggest that the drug may be able to reduce the consequences of inflammation—limiting progressive fibrosis in some circumstances—and may be of durable benefit in selected patients. A retrospective review of patients with liver injury and underlying myeloproliferative disorders treated with ruxolitinib and evaluated by biopsy demonstrated a variety of etiologies7; however, it is not always easy to determine how much is related to the underlying disease versus drug effects based on the biopsy findings, and this distinction is predominantly a clinical decision.

Liver toxicity typically manifests as mild hepatic transaminitis and can be exacerbated by drug–drug interactions. The incidence of hepatic transaminitis has been reported to be between 25% and 50%. Typically, these elevations are mild and self-limited, with < 1.5% of patients having values > 5 times the upper limit of normal. The drug is metabolized in the liver predominantly via the CYP3A4 pathway, and liver injury may be the result of the production of a toxic intermediate. Drug–drug interactions, such as with azole antifungals, can increase the effective exposure and enhance the potential for toxicity. Because suppression of intracellular signaling impairs immune response, suppression of viral replication may be impaired, increasing the potential for reactivation of quiescent viruses. This has been reported with reactivation of hepatitis B, resulting in clinically meaningful liver injury in patients who are at risk. It appears that the risk of viral reactivation with transaminitis and hyperbilirubinemia is greater in patients with HBsAg positivity, but reactivation has also been reported in those with anti-HBc. Efficacy with entecavir has been reported in treating viral reactivation and prophylaxis, so a nucleoside analog such as entecavir or tenofovir should be considered in patients who are at high risk.8-10

Management of liver injury related to ruxolitinib depends on the cause and severity. Identifying contributing causes, such as drug–drug interactions and prior viral hepatitis exposure and excluding other hepatotoxins are the initial imperative. Prior viral exposure with reactivation should be treated or prophylaxed when applicable. For mild transaminase elevations without hyperbilirubinemia, monitoring or temporary dose reduction may be appropriate. In more significant liver injury, dose interruption may be necessary. Consideration of an alternative JAK inhibitor may occasionally be warranted, as there does not appear to be significant evidence to suggest cross-reactivity between ruxolitinib and other JAK inhibitors. Of note, a retrospective review of liver injury occurring in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms receiving ruxolitinib suggested a variety of potential etiologies, including those unrelated to the drug itself (EMH), in addition to obstructive portal vein apathy and drug-induced liver injury.

Read more

Talazoparib Plus Pacritinib Aims to Improve the Limitations of Second-Line Therapy in MPNs

Posted on by

September 5, 2024

Author(s): Caroline Seymour

Fact checked by:Kristi Rosa

The combination of talazoparib (Talzenna) and pacritinib (Vonjo) could provide more than symptom burden relief for patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) who have become unresponsive to frontline JAK2 inhibition with ruxolitinib (Jakafi), according to Peter Abdelmessieh, DO, MSC.

The regimen is under study in a phase 1 trial (NCT06218628) at Fox Chase Cancer Center and is supported by earlier work published in Blood showing the synergistic disease-modifying activity of the regimen.1

To be eligible for enrollment, patients must have received a diagnosis of histologically or cytologically confirmed primary myelofibrosis, post-polycythemia vera-myelofibrosis, post-essential thrombocythemia-myelofibrosis, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocytosis according to the 2008 World Health Organization criteria. Patients must also have at least 2 symptoms with a score of 3 or greater or a total score of 12 or greater, according to the Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form v4.0; intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis according to the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System Plus; and a baseline QTc less than 0.47 seconds per Bazett formula.

Additionally, patients must have prior exposure to a JAK2 inhibitor for at least 12 weeks with documented disease progression or have new, palpable splenomegaly measuring at least 5 cm below the left costal margin in patients who had no evidence of splenomegaly before the start of any frontline JAK2 inhibitor.2

“Second-line treatment for patients with this disease is an unmet need along with the need to investigate other possible pathways that might be effective in this disease. The tool shed is essentially barren for clinicians outside of JAK2 inhibitors,” Abdelmessieh said in an interview with OncLive®.

In the interview, Abdelmessieh, an assistant professor in the Department of Bone Marrow Transplant and Cellular Therapies at Fox Chase Cancer Center, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, discussed the basis for the phase 1 trial in patients with MPNs.

Read more

Momelotinib May Improve Survival and Quality of Life in MF

Posted on by

August 30, 2024

Leonardo Jaimes

Momelotinib appears to positively impact quality of life and overall survival in patients with myelofibrosis (MF), according to a recently published study in Frontiers in Oncology.

Most MF cases are associated with JAK or CALR mutations, which lead to an uncontrolled proliferation of stem cells and a decrease in the production of red blood cells (RBCs) and thrombocytes, the researchers noted.

Stem cell transplantation is currently the only curative alternative available for patients with MF. The advent of JAK inhibitors represented a significant advancement in symptom management, but patients often observed decreased efficacy after 3 years.

Anemia is largely responsible for the decrease in quality of life seen in patients with MF and represents an important cause of treatment discontinuation, as some of the treatments used in MF can contribute to the development of anemia.

“Anemia in MF is a complex condition resulting from factors such as displacement of erythropoietic tissue by fibrotic stroma, suboptimal environments in extramedullary sites, and splenomegaly-induced RBC sequestration,” the authors wrote.

Momelotinib is an effective JAK1/2 inhibitor that can successfully treat anemia in patients with MF, decreasing the need for transfusions. It can also prevent hepcidin synthesis, which in turn leads to increased iron circulation and increased erythropoiesis.

The effectiveness of momelotinib is supported by the results of the MOMENTUM trial; the double-blind included almost 200 patients who received either momelotinib or danazol to treat MF-associated anemia.  Results showed that patients who received were significantly less likely to require blood transfusions and have better Total Symptom Score than their counterparts.

Read more