Efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis: a retrospective and multicenter experience in Turkey

Background/aim: The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis. Materials and methods: From 15 centers, 176 patients (53.4% male, 46.6% female) were retrospectively evaluated. Results: The median age at ruxolitinib initiation was 62 (28–87) and 100 (56.8%) of all were diagnosed as PMF. Constitutional symptoms were observed in 84.7%. The median initiation dose of ruxolitinib was 30 mg (10–40). Dose change was made in 69 (39.2%) patients. Forty seven (35.6%) and 20 (15.2%) of 132 patients had hematological and nonhematological adverse events, respectively. The mean spleen sizes before and after ruxolitinib treatment were 219.67 ± 46.79 mm versus 199.49 ± 40.95 mm, respectively (p < 0.001). There was no correlation between baseline features and subsequent spleen response. Overall survival at 1-year was 89.5% and the median follow up was 10 (1–55) months. We could not show any relationship between survival and reduction in spleen size (p = 0.73). Conclusion: We found ruxolitinib to be safe, well tolerated, and effective in real-life clinical practice in Turkey. Ruxolitinib dose titration can provide better responses in terms of not only clinical benefit but also for long term of ruxolitinib treatment.Key words: Myelofibrosis, treatment, survival, ruxolitinib, adverse events

PDF

___

1. Tefferi A. Primary myelofibrosis: 2017 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management. American Journal of Hematology 2016; 91 (12): 1262-1271. doi: 10.1002/ajh.24592
2. Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian R, Thiele J, Borowitz MJ, et al. The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood 2016; 127 (20): 2391-2405. doi: 10.1182/ blood-2016-03-643544
3. Barosi G, Mesa RA, Thiele J, Cervantes F, Campbell PJ 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. Leukemia 2008; 22 (2): 437-438. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404914
4. James C, Ugo V, Le Couédic JP, Staerk J, Delhommeau F et al. A unique clonal JAK2 mutation leading to constitutive signalling causes polycythaemia vera. Nature 2005; 434 (7037): 1144-1148. doi: 10.1038/nature03546
5. Kralovics R, Passamonti F, Buser AS, Teo SS, Tiedt R et al. A gain-of-function mutation of JAK2 in myeloproliferative disorders. New England Journal of Medicine 2005; 352 (17): 1779-1790. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa051113
6. Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Gotlib J, Levy RS, Gupta V et al. A double‐blind, placebo-controlled trial of ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis. New England Journal of Medicine 2012; 366 (9): 799‐807. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1110557
7. Harrison C, Kiladjian JJ, Al-Ali HK, Gisslinger H, Waltzman Rb et al. JAK inhibition with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy for myelofibrosis. New England Journal of Medicine 2012; 366 (9): 787‐798. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1110556
8. Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Gotlib J, Levy RS, Gupta V et al. Efficacy, safety, and survival with ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis: results of a median 3-year follow-up of COMFORT-I. Haematologica 2015; 100 (4): 479-488. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2014.115840
9. Cervantes F, Vannucchi AM, Kiladjian JJ, Al-Ali HK, Sirulnik A et al. Three-year efficacy, safety, and survival findings from COMFORT-II, a phase 3 study comparing ruxolitinib with best available therapy for myelofibrosis. Blood 2013; 122 (25): 4047-4053. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-02-485888
10. Harrison CN, Vannucchi AM, Kiladjian JJ, Al-Ali HK, Gisslinger H et al. Long-term findings from COMFORTII, a phase 3 study of ruxolitinib vs best available therapy for myelofibrosis. Leukemia 2016; 30 (8): 1701-1707. doi: 10.1038/leu.2016.148
11. Al-Ali HK, Griesshammer M, Le Coutre P, Waller CF, Liberati AM 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. Haematologica 2016; 101 (9): 1065‐1073. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2016.143677
12. Geyer H, Cannon K, Knight E, Fauble V, Camoriano J et al. Ruxolitinib in clinical practice for therapy of myelofibrosis: single USA center experience following food and drug administration approval. Leukemia and Lymphoma 2014; 55 (1): 195-197. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2013.789507
13. Chen YY, Huang CE, Lee KD, Chen CC. Clinical efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in the management of myelofibrosis: a single institution experience in Taiwan. Hematology 2016; 21 (1): 3-9. doi: 10.1179/1607845415Y.0000000036
14. Ellis MH, Lavi N, Mishchenko E, Dally N, Lavie D et al. Ruxolitinib treatment for myelofibrosis: efficacy and tolerability in routine practice. Leukemia Research 2015; 39 (11): 1154- 1158. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2015.08.003
15. Passamonti F, Cervantes F, Vannucchi AM, Morra E, Rumi E 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). Blood 2010; 115 (9): 1703-1708. doi: 10.1182/ blood-2009-09-245837
16. Gangat N, Caramazza D, Vaidya R, George G, Begna K et al. DIPSS plus: a refined dynamic international prognostic scoring system for primary myelofibrosis that incorporates prognostic information from karyotype, platelet count, and transfusion status. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2011; 29 (4): 392-397. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.2446
17. Vardiman JW, Thiele J, Arber DA, Brunning RD, Borowitz MJ et al. The 2008 revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia: rationale and important changes. Blood 2009; 114 (5): 937-951. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-03-209262
18. Komatsu N, Kirito K, Shimoda K, Ishikawa T, Ohishi K et al. Assessing the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in a multicenter, open-label study in Japanese patients with myelofibrosis. International Journal of Hematology 2017; 105 (3): 309-317. doi: 10.1007/s12185-016-2130-z
19. Naqvi K, Daver N, Pemmaraju N, Bose P, Garcia-Manero G et al. Clinical use of ruxolitinib in an academic medical center in unselected patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms not on clinical study. Leukemia and Lymphoma 2017; 58 (4): 866-871. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2016.1217528
20. Palandri F, Palumbo GA, Bonifacio M, Tiribelli M, Benevolo G et al. Baseline factors associated with response to ruxolitinib: an independent study on 408 patients with myelofibrosis. Oncotarget 2017; 8 (45): 79073-79086. doi: 10.18632/ oncotarget.18674
21. Miller CB, Komrokji RS, Mesa RA, Sun W, Montgomery M et al. Practical measures of clinical benefit with ruxolitinib therapy: an exploratory analysis of COMFORT-I. Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia 2017; 17 (8): 479-487. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2017.05.015
22. Breccia M, Andriani A, Montanaro M, Abruzzese E, Buccisano F et al. Ruxolitinib in clinical practice for primary and secondary myelofibrosis: an analysis of safety and efficacy of GruppoLaziale of Ph-negative MPN. Annals of Hematology 2017; 96 (3): 387-391. doi: 10.1007/s00277-016-2884-7
23. Kirito K, Okamoto S, Ohishi K, Tauchi T, Handa H et al. Evaluation of the dose and efficacy of ruxolitinib in Japanese patients with myelofibrosis. International Journal of Hematology 2018; 107 (1): 92-97. doi: 10.1007/s12185-017- 2332-z
24. Oritani K, Ohishi K, Okamoto S, Kirito K, Komatsu N et al. Effect of ruxolitinib therapy on the quality-of-life of Japanese patients with myelofibrosis. Current Medical Research and Opinion 2018; 34 (3): 531-537. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2017.1415874