During a Targeted Oncology™ Case-Based Roundtable™ event, Bart Scott, MD, discussed the importance of overall survival data in JAK inhibitor trials and how to transition between agents. This is the second of 2 articles based on this event.
Bart Scott, MD
Professor, Transplantation Program
Clinical Research Division
Miklos Kohary and Natalia Zimonyi Kohary Endowed Chair
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center
Seattle, WA
Targeted Oncology: What limitations and key takeaways do you see regarding trials of different Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in patients with myelofibrosis?
BART SCOTT, MD: MOMENTUM [NCT04173494] didn’t have overall survival [OS] as an end point. It had total symptom score as its [primary] end point. PERSIST-2 [NCT02055781] was a subset analysis from a small number of patients. So although I believe the data support the use [of pacritinib (Vonjo)], if you look at the spleen volume responses in PERSIST-2, you’re talking about 31 vs 32 patients.1 That’s a pretty [small] dataset. This is in the patients with a platelet count of less than 50,000/μL. It’s a limited data set from PERSIST-2 [whereas we have] much more robust data in the COMFORT-I [NCT00952289] and COMFORT-II [NCT00934544] trials [for ruxolitinib (Jakafi)].
I agree [with using pacritinib in patients with low baseline platelet count], but that’s because I think [physicians] suboptimally dose ruxolitinib. But patients also have to be alive in order for them to benefit. If somebody dies from bleeding, then of course they’re not going to benefit from JAK inhibitor therapy.
What is the significance of the OS data for ruxolitinib?
Both COMFORT-I and COMFORT-II had OS as a secondary end point, and it was recorded in the initial abstracts. Part of the issue with analyzing OS in both COMFORT-I and COMFORT-II is that the crossover rates after 24 weeks was very high in both. Critics of these survival [data] say “We’re basically looking at ruxolitinib early vs ruxolitinib late.” But still, they are able to show a survival benefit in the patients initially randomly assigned to ruxolitinib.2
How do you transition patients with declining platelet count from ruxolitinib to pacritinib? Is tapering required?
That truthful answer to the question is we don’t know. For the PAC-203 trial [NCT03165734], we did taper ruxolitinib, and we had a 2-week washout. Part of the problem with doing clinical trials…is that they don’t reflect what happens in the real world. In the real world, it would be inappropriate for someone to say, “I’m going to stop the medication that’s [partially] working for you, but it’s not so great, and then come back 2 weeks later, we’ll see what happens.” Because if you stop ruxolitinib, what do you think’s going to happen to their spleen? It’s going to start growing [as a rebound].
I’m not going to pretend that I know what the right answer is. I can only tell you about my anecdotal experience. But I have a lot of patients whom I cared for in PAC-203, and we were a good enroller for that study. PAC-203 was a follow-up for PERSIST-2 to determine the appropriate dose. We [enrolled patients in] PERSIST-2 as well. All those studies required a 2-week washout period of ruxolitinib. What I found is that as I tapered the ruxolitinib, there were a lot of patients who [told me], “Now that you’ve brought me down to 5 mg twice a day, I don’t want to come off ruxolitinib. Please put me back up on the higher dose.” That’s my anecdotal experience. Expert opinion is broad and differential in regard to this. I think it’s better to taper because a lot of patients who are saying that the ruxolitinib isn’t working for them anymore, once they start to taper [say] "Put me back on that drug.”
References:
1. Mascarenhas J, Hoffman R, Talpaz M, et al. Pacritinib vs best available therapy, including ruxolitinib, in patients with myelofibrosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(5):652-659. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5818
2. Verstovsek S, Gotlib J, Mesa RA, et al. Long-term survival in patients treated with ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis: COMFORT-I and -II pooled analyses. J Hematol Oncol. 2017;10(1):156. doi:10.1186/s13045-017-0527-7
Peers Discuss Sacituzumab Govitecan in HR+ mBC Post Endocrine Therapy
July 24th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Tiffany A. Traina, MD, surveyed participants on treatment for a patient who had progressed following endocrine therapy for metastatic breast cancer in the first article of a 2-part series.
Read More
Dato-DXd Shows Promise as a More Tolerable ADC in HER2-Negative mBC
July 22nd 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Igor Makhlin, MD, discussed with participants their impressions of datopotamab deruxtecan as therapy for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, and the sequential use of multiple antibody-drug conjugates.
Read More
Rossetti Reviews Myelofibrosis Risk Stratification and Outcome Data for Pacritinib
July 17th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, James M. Rossetti, DO, discussed the role of risk scoring and stratification tools and treatment for a patient with declining hemoglobin and platelet counts due to primary myelofibrosis.
Read More
Similar Efficacy in Melanoma Shown in Indirect Comparison of PD-1/LAG3 vs PD-1/CTLA-4
July 16th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Michael A. Postow, MD, discussed an indirect treatment comparison of nivolumab plus relatlimab vs nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma in the first article of a 2-part series.
Read More
Phase 3 VERIFY Trial Investigates Rusfertide’s Potential in Polycythemia Vera
July 16th 2024In an interview, Aniket Bankar, MD, discussed the background, design, and goals of the phase 3 VERIFY trial of the hepcidin mimetic rusfertide for the treatment of patients with polycythemia vera.
Read More
Evolving Roles of Transplant and Quadruplet Therapy in Multiple Myeloma
July 15th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Adam D. Cohen, MD, discussed triplet vs quadruplet options for a patient with transplant eligible multiple myeloma and NCCN recommendations in the first article of a 2-part series.
Read More