Real-World Use of Fedratinib for Myelofibrosis Following Prior Ruxolitinib Failure: Patient Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of established clinical outcomes for patients with myelofibrosis (MF) receiving fedratinib following ruxolitinib failure. This study examined real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of patients with MF treated with fedratinib following ruxolitinib failure in US clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective patient chart review included adults with a physician-reported diagnosis of MF, who initiated fedratinib after discontinuing ruxolitinib. Descriptive analyses characterized patient characteristics, clinical outcomes, and treatment patterns from MF diagnosis through ruxolitinib and fedratinib treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-four physicians abstracted data for 150 eligible patients. Approximately 55.3% of the patients were male, 68.0% were White, and median age at MF diagnosis was 68 (range, 35-84) years. Median duration of ruxolitinib therapy was 7.6 (range, 0.7-65.5) months. At initiation of fedratinib, 88.0% of patients had palpable spleen and a mean spleen size of 16.0 (standard deviation [SD], 5.9) cm. Spleen size decreased by 19.4% to 13.2 (SD, 7.9) cm at month 3 (P = .0001) and by 53.4% to 7.2 (SD, 7.4) cm at month 6 (P = .01) of fedratinib treatment, respectively. Almost one-third (26.8%) of patients had achieved ≥ 50% spleen reduction by month 6. Mean number of symptoms also decreased significantly at month 3 (P < .0001) and month 6 (P = .01). CONCLUSION: Fedratinib appears to deliver spleen and symptom benefits in real-world patients with MF previously treated with ruxolitinib.

Genomic Data Heterogeneity across Molecular Diagnostic Laboratories: A Real-World Connect Myeloid Disease Registry Perspective on Variabilities in Genomic Assay Methodology and Reporting.

Genomic data variability from laboratory reports can impact clinical decisions and population-level analyses; however, the extent of this variability and the impact on the data's value are not well characterized. This pilot study used anonymized genetic and genomic test reports from the Connect Myeloid Disease Registry (NCT01688011), a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed myelodysplastic syndromes, acute myeloid leukemia, or idiopathic cytopenia of undetermined significance, to analyze laboratory test variabilities and limitations. Results for 56 randomly selected patients enrolled in the Registry were independently extracted and evaluated (data cutoff, January 2020). Ninety-five reports describing 113 assay results from these 56 patients were analyzed for discrepancies. Almost all assay results [101 (89%)] identified the sequencing technology applied, and 94 (83%) described the test limitations; 95 (84%) described the limits of detection, but none described the limit of blank for detecting false positives. RNA transcript identifiers were not provided for 20 (43%) variants analyzed by next-generation sequencing and reported by the same laboratory. Of 42 variants with variant allele frequencies ≥30%, 16 (38%) of the variants did not have report text indicating that the variants might be germline. Variabilities and lack of standardization present challenges for incorporating this information into clinical care and render data collation ineffective and unreliable for large-scale use in centralized databases for therapeutic discovery.

Transplantation Referral Patterns for Patients with Newly Diagnosed Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes and Acute Myeloid Leukemia at Academic and Community Sites in the Connect® Myeloid Disease Registry: Potential Barriers to Care.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is indicated for patients with higher-risk (HR) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Age, performance status, patient frailty, comorbidities, and nonclinical factors (eg, cost, distance to site) are all recognized as important clinical factors that can influence HCT referral patterns and patient outcomes; however, the proportion of eligible patients referred for HCT in routine clinical practice is largely unknown. This study aimed to assess patterns of consideration for HCT among patients with HR-MDS and AML enrolled in the Connect® Myeloid Disease Registry at community/government (CO/GOV)- or academic (AC)-based sites, as well as to identify factors associated with rates of transplantation referral. We assessed patterns of consideration for and completion of HCT in patients with HR-MDS and AML enrolled between December 12, 2013, and March 6, 2020, in the Connect Myeloid Disease Registry at 164 CO/GOV and AC sites. Registry sites recorded whether patients were considered for transplantation at baseline and at each follow-up visit. The following answers were possible: "considered potentially eligible," "not considered potentially eligible," or "not assessed." Sites also recorded whether patients subsequently underwent HCT at each follow-up visit. Rates of consideration for HCT between CO/GOV and AC sites were compared using multivariable logistic regression analysis with covariates for age and comorbidity. Among the 778 patients with HR-MDS or AML enrolled in the Connect Myeloid Disease Registry, patients at CO/GOV sites were less likely to be considered potentially eligible for HCT than patients at AC sites (27.9% versus 43.9%; P < .0001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis with factors for age (<65 versus ≥65 years) and ACE-27 comorbidity grade (<2 versus ≥2) showed that patients at CO/GOV sites were significantly less likely than those at AC sites to be considered potentially eligible for HCT (odds ratio, 1.6, 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.4; P = .0155). Among patients considered eligible for HCT, 45.1% (65 of 144) of those at CO/GOV sites and 35.7% (41 of 115) of those at AC sites underwent transplantation (P = .12). Approximately one-half of all patients at CO/GOV (50.1%) and AC (45.4%) sites were not considered potentially eligible for HCT; the most common reasons were age at CO/GOV sites (71.5%) and comorbidities at AC sites (52.1%). Across all sites, 17.4% of patients were reported as not assessed (and thus not considered) for HCT by their treating physician (20.7% at CO/GOV sites and 10.7% at AC sites; P = .0005). These findings suggest that many patients with HR-MDS and AML who may be candidates for HCT are not receiving assessment or consideration for transplantation in clinical practice. In addition, treatment at CO/GOV sites and age remain significant barriers to ensuring that all potentially eligible patients are assessed for HCT.