A Phase Ib/II Study of the BRAF Inhibitor Encorafenib Plus the MEK Inhibitor Binimetinib in Patients with BRAFV600E/K -mutant Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: This open-label, dose-finding phase Ib/II study reports the safety and activity of the first combination use with BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) encorafenib plus MEK inhibitor (MEKi) binimetinib in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In phase I, the recommended phase 2 doses (RP2D) were established (primary objective). In phase II, the clinical activity of the combination at the RP2D was assessed (primary objective) in patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), BRAFi-treated BRAF-mutant melanoma, and BRAFi-naïve BRAF-mutant melanoma. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients with BRAF-mutant solid tumors were enrolled (phase I: 47 patients; phase II: 79 patients). The RP2D was encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily and pharmacokinetic data suggest that drug exposures of each agent were similar in combination compared with single-agent studies. In the phase II cohorts, confirmed responses were seen in two of 11 (18%) evaluable patients with mCRC, 11 of 26 (42%) evaluable patients with BRAFi-pretreated melanoma, and 28 of 42 (67%) BRAFi-naïve patients with melanoma. The most common grade 3/4 adverse event in phase II was increased alanine aminotransferase. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of encorafenib (450 mg) plus binimetinib (45 mg) showed acceptable tolerability and encouraging activity in patients with BRAF V600-mutant tumors, which led to the dose selection for the melanoma COLUMBUS study. The safety profile of the combination was consistent with other approved BRAFi plus MEKi regimens, with several differences, including lower rates of dose-limiting pyrexia, arthralgia, and photosensitivity.

Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and Cetuximab in BRAF V600E-Mutated Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with the BRAF V600E mutation have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival of 4 to 6 months after failure of initial therapy. Inhibition of BRAF alone has limited activity because of pathway reactivation through epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we enrolled 665 patients with BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer who had had disease progression after one or two previous regimens. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab (triplet-therapy group); encorafenib and cetuximab (doublet-therapy group); or the investigators' choice of either cetuximab and irinotecan or cetuximab and FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) (control group). The primary end points were overall survival and objective response rate in the triplet-therapy group as compared with the control group. A secondary end point was overall survival in the doublet-therapy group as compared with the control group. We report here the results of a prespecified interim analysis. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 9.0 months in the triplet-therapy group and 5.4 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.70; P<0.001). The confirmed response rate was 26% (95% CI, 18 to 35) in the triplet-therapy group and 2% (95% CI, 0 to 7) in the control group (P<0.001). The median overall survival in the doublet-therapy group was 8.4 months (hazard ratio for death vs. control, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.79; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 58% of patients in the triplet-therapy group, in 50% in the doublet-therapy group, and in 61% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of encorafenib, cetuximab, and binimetinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and a higher response rate than standard therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with the BRAF V600E mutation. (Funded by Array BioPharma and others; BEACON CRC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02928224; EudraCT number, 2015-005805-35.).

Binimetinib, Encorafenib, and Cetuximab Triplet Therapy for Patients With BRAF V600E-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Safety Lead-In Results From the Phase III BEACON Colorectal Cancer Study.

PURPOSE: To determine the safety and preliminary efficacy of selective combination targeted therapy for BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the safety lead-in phase of the open-label, randomized, three-arm, phase III BEACON Colorectal Cancer trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02928224; European Union Clinical Trials Register identifier: EudraCT2015-005805-35). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Before initiation of the randomized portion of the BEACON Colorectal Cancer trial, 30 patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC who had experienced treatment failure with one or two prior regimens were to be recruited to a safety lead-in of encorafenib 300 mg daily, binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, plus standard weekly cetuximab. The primary end point was safety, including the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities. Efficacy end points included overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Among the 30 treated patients, dose-limiting toxicities occurred in five patients and included serous retinopathy (n = 2), reversible decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (n = 1), and cetuximab-related infusion reactions (n = 2). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were fatigue (13%), anemia (10%), increased creatine phosphokinase (10%), increased AST (10%), and urinary tract infections (10%). In 29 patients with BRAF V600E-mutant tumors (one patient had a non-BRAF V600E-mutant tumor and was not included in the efficacy analysis), the confirmed overall response rate was 48% (95% CI, 29.4% to 67.5%), median progression-free survival was 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 9.3 months), and median overall survival was 15.3 months (95% CI, 9.6 months to not reached), with median duration of follow-up of 18.2 months (range, 16.6 to 19.8 months). CONCLUSION: In the safety lead-in, the safety and tolerability of the encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab regimen is manageable and acceptable for initiation of the randomized portion of the study. The observed efficacy is promising compared with available therapies and, if confirmed in the randomized portion of the trial, could establish this regimen as a new standard of care for previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC.

Overall survival in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib alone improved progression-free survival compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma in the COLUMBUS trial. Here, we report the results of the secondary endpoint of overall survival. METHODS: COLUMBUS was a two-part, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma, BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by use of interactive response technology to receive oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). Randomisation was stratified by the American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, ECOG performance status, and BRAF mutation status. The primary outcome of the trial, progression-free survival with encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib, was reported previously. Here we present the prespecified interim overall survival analysis. Efficacy analyses were by intent to treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Part 2 of the study was initiated at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration to better understand the contribution of binimetinib to the combination therapy by comparing encorafenib 300 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily with encorafenib 300 mg once daily alone. Results of part 2 will be published separately. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38. FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive encorafenib plus binimetinib (n=192), encorafenib (n=194), or vemurafenib (n=191). Median follow-up for overall survival was 36·8 months (95% CI 35·9-37·5). Median overall survival was 33·6 months (95% CI 24·4-39·2) with encorafenib plus binimetinib and 16·9 months (14·0-24·5) with vemurafenib (hazard ratio 0·61 [95% CI 0·47-0·79]; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events did not change substantially from the first report; those seen in more than 5% of patients treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (14 [7%]), and hypertension (12 [6%]); those seen with encorafenib alone were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and with vemurafenib the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). One death in the combination treatment group was considered by the investigator to be possibly related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: The combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib provided clinically meaningful efficacy with good tolerability as shown by improvements in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with vemurafenib. These data suggest that the combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib is likely to become an important therapeutic option in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. FUNDING: Array BioPharma, Novartis.

Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Combined BRAF-MEK inhibitor therapy is the standard of care for BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma. We investigated encorafenib, a BRAF inhibitor with unique target-binding properties, alone or in combination with the MEK inhibitor binimetinib, versus vemurafenib in patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. METHODS: COLUMBUS was conducted as a two-part, randomised, open-label phase 3 study at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed locally advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV), unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma; a BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutation; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after previous first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive either oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review for encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib. Efficacy analyses were by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug and one postbaseline safety assessment. The results of part 2 will be published separately. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38. FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to either the encorafenib plus binimetinib group (n=192), the encorafenib group (n=194), or the vemurafenib group (n=191). With a median follow-up of 16·6 months (95% CI 14·8-16·9), median progression-free survival was 14·9 months (95% CI 11·0-18·5) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group and 7·3 months (5·6-8·2) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 95% CI 0·41-0·71; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events seen in more than 5% of patients in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased creatine phosphokinase (13 [7%]), and hypertension (11 [6%]); in the encorafenib group they were palmoplantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and in the vemurafenib group it was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). There were no treatment-related deaths except for one death in the combination group, which was considered possibly related to treatment by the investigator. INTERPRETATION: Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy showed favourable efficacy compared with vemurafenib. Overall, encorafenib plus binimetinib appears to have an improved tolerability profile compared with encorafenib or vemurafenib. Encorafenib plus binimetinib could represent a new treatment option for patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. FUNDING: Array BioPharma, Novartis.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase II Study of Ruxolitinib or Placebo in Combination With Capecitabine in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer for Whom Therapy With Gemcitabine Has Failed.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma have a poor prognosis and limited second-line treatment options. Evidence suggests a role for the Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway in the pathogenesis and clinical course of pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, phase II study, patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who had experienced treatment failure with gemcitabine were randomly assigned 1:1 to the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib (15 mg twice daily) plus capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily) or placebo plus capecitabine. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival, clinical benefit response, objective response rate, and safety. Prespecified subgroup analyses evaluated treatment heterogeneity and efficacy in patients with evidence of inflammation. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population (ruxolitinib, n = 64; placebo, n = 63), the hazard ratio was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.53 to 1.18; P = .25) for OS and was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.52 to 1.10; P = .14) for progression-free survival. In a prespecified subgroup analysis of patients with inflammation, defined by serum C-reactive protein levels greater than the study population median (ie, 13 mg/L), OS was significantly greater with ruxolitinib than with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.85; P = .011). Prolonged survival in this subgroup was supported by post hoc analyses of OS that categorized patients by the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score, a systemic inflammation-based prognostic system. Grade 3 or greater adverse events were observed with similar frequency in the ruxolitinib (74.6%) and placebo (81.7%) groups. Grade 3 or greater anemia was more frequent with ruxolitinib (15.3%; placebo, 1.7%). CONCLUSION: Ruxolitinib plus capecitabine was generally well tolerated and may improve survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and evidence of systemic inflammation.

A pooled analysis of overall survival in COMFORT-I and COMFORT-II, 2 randomized phase III trials of ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis.

Ruxolitinib, a potent Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, resulted in rapid and durable improvements in splenomegaly and disease-related symptoms in the 2 phase III COMFORT studies. In addition, ruxolitinib was associated with prolonged survival compared with placebo (COMFORT-I) and best available therapy (COMFORT-II). We present a pooled analysis of overall survival in the COMFORT studies using an intent-to-treat analysis and an analysis correcting for crossover in the control arms. Overall, 301 patients received ruxolitinib (COMFORT-I, n=155; COMFORT-II, n=146) and 227 patients received placebo (n=154) or best available therapy (n=73). After a median three years of follow up, intent-to-treat analysis showed that patients who received ruxolitinib had prolonged survival compared with patients who received placebo or best available therapy [hazard ratio=0.65; 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.46-0.90; P=0.01]; the crossover-corrected hazard ratio was 0.29 (95%CI: 0.13-0.63). Both patients with intermediate-2- or high-risk disease showed prolonged survival, and patients with high-risk disease in the ruxolitinib group had survival similar to that of patients with intermediate-2-risk disease in the control group. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival at week 144 was 78% in the ruxolitinib arm, 61% in the intent-to-treat control arm, and 31% in the crossover-adjusted control arm. While larger spleen size at baseline was prognostic for shortened survival, reductions in spleen size with ruxolitinib treatment correlated with longer survival. These findings are consistent with previous reports and support that ruxolitinib offers a survival benefit for patients with myelofibrosis compared with conventional therapies. (clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: COMFORT-I, NCT00952289; COMFORT-II, NCT00934544).

Effects of ruxolitinib treatment on metabolic and nutritional parameters in patients with myelofibrosis from COMFORT-I.

BACKGROUND: In the COMFORT (COntrolled MyeloFibrosis Study with ORal JAK Inhibitor Therapy)-I study, the Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib provided significant reductions in splenomegaly, improvements in myelofibrosis (MF)-related symptoms, and a survival advantage relative to placebo in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk MF. In this post hoc analysis, we assessed the effects of ruxolitinib treatment on measures of metabolic and nutritional status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive ruxolitinib (n = 155; 15 or 20 mg twice a day for patients with baseline platelet counts of 100-200 × 10(9)/L or > 200 × 10(9)/L, respectively) or placebo (n = 154). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a ≥ 35% spleen volume reduction from baseline to week 24. A secondary end point was the proportion of patients with ≥ 50% improvement in Total Symptom Score (TSS) from baseline to week 24, measured using the modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form version 2.0. Weight, cholesterol, and albumin were measured at specified time points throughout the study. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, ruxolitinib treatment was associated with increased weight (mean change: 3.9 kg vs. -1.9 kg), total cholesterol (mean percentage change: 26.4% vs. -3.3%), and albumin levels (mean percentage change: 5.8% vs. -1.7%) at week 24; sustained improvements were observed with longer-term ruxolitinib therapy. Relative to placebo, increases in mean weight, total cholesterol, and albumin levels were observed with ruxolitinib treatment regardless of the degree of spleen volume and TSS reductions at 24 weeks. CONCLUSION: Treatment with ruxolitinib improved measures of metabolic and nutritional status of patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk MF.

Efficacy, safety, and survival with ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis: results of a median 3-year follow-up of COMFORT-I.

In the phase III COMFORT-I study, the Janus kinase 1 (JAK1)/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib provided significant improvements in splenomegaly, key symptoms, and quality-of-life measures and was associated with an overall survival benefit relative to placebo in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis. This planned analysis assessed the long-term efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib at a median follow-up of 149 weeks. At data cutoff, approximately 50% of patients originally randomized to ruxolitinib remained on treatment whereas all patients originally assigned to placebo had discontinued or crossed over to ruxolitinib. At week 144, mean spleen volume reduction was 34% with ruxolitinib. Previously observed improvements in quality-of-life measures were sustained with longer-term ruxolitinib therapy. Overall survival continued to favor ruxolitinib despite the majority of placebo patients crossing over to ruxolitinib [hazard ratio 0.69 (95% confidence interval: 0.46-1.03); P = 0.067]. Exploratory analyses suggest that crossover may have contributed to an underestimation of the true survival difference between the treatment groups. Ruxolitinib continued to be generally well tolerated; there was no pattern of worsening grade ≥ 3 anemia or thrombocytopenia with longer-term ruxolitinib exposure. These longer-term data continue to support the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis. The study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00952289.

A phase 2 study of ruxolitinib, an oral JAK1 and JAK2 Inhibitor, in patients with advanced polycythemia vera who are refractory or intolerant to hydroxyurea.

BACKGROUND: Polycythemia vera (PV) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm associated with somatic gain-of-function mutations of Janus kinase-2 (JAK2). Therapeutic options are limited in patients with advanced disease. Ruxolitinib, an oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, is active in preclinical models of PV. The long-term efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in patients with advanced PV who are refractory or intolerant to hydroxyurea were studied in a phase 2 trial. METHODS: Response was assessed using modified European LeukemiaNet criteria, which included a reduction in hematocrit to <45% without phlebotomy, resolution of palpable splenomegaly, normalization of white blood cell and platelet counts, and reduction in PV-associated symptoms. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients received ruxolitinib for a median of 152 weeks (range, 31 weeks-177 weeks) or 35.0 months (range, 7.1 months-40.7 months). Hematocrit <45% without phlebotomy was achieved in 97% of patients by week 24.Only 1 patient required a phlebotomy after week 4. Among patients with palpable splenomegaly at baseline, 44% and 63%, respectively, achieved nonpalpable spleen measurements at weeks 24 and 144. Clinically meaningful improvements in pruritus, night sweats, and bone pain were observed within 4 weeks of the initiation of therapy and maintained with continued treatment. Ruxolitinib treatment also reduced elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines and granulocyte activation. Thrombocytopenia and anemia were the most common adverse events.Thrombocytopenia of grade 3 or anemia of grade 3 (according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events,version 3.0) occurred in 3 patients each (9%) (1 patient had both) and were managed with dose modification. CONCLUSIONS: Ruxolitinib was generally well tolerated and provided rapid and durable clinical benefits in patients with advanced PV who were refractory or intolerant to hydroxyurea.

Comparison of placebo and best available therapy for the treatment of myelofibrosis in the phase 3 COMFORT studies.

Prior to Janus kinase inhibitors, available therapies for myelofibrosis were generally supportive and did not improve survival. This analysis compares efficacy outcomes of patients with myelofibrosis in the control arms (placebo [n=154] and best available therapy [n=73]) from the two phase 3 COntrolled MyeloFibrosis study with ORal JAK inhibitor Treatment (COMFORT) studies. Spleen volume was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography at baseline and every 12 weeks through week 72; spleen length was assessed by palpation at each study visit. Health-related quality of life and symptoms were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 Items at baseline and in weeks 4, 8, 12, 16 and 24 in COMFORT-I and in weeks 8, 16, 24 and 48 in COMFORT-II. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the control arms of the two studies. One patient who received placebo and no patients who received best available therapy had a ≥35% reduction in spleen volume from baseline at week 24. At 24 weeks, neither placebo nor best available therapy had produced clinically meaningful changes in global quality of life or symptom scales. Non-hematologic adverse events were mostly grade 1/2; the most frequently reported adverse events in each group were abdominal pain, fatigue, peripheral edema and diarrhea. These data suggest that non-Janus kinase inhibitor therapies provide little improvement in splenomegaly, symptoms or quality of life as compared with placebo. Both COMFORT-I (NCT00952289) and COMFORT-II (NCT00934544) studies have been appropriately registered with clinicaltrials.gov.

Management of cytopenias in patients with myelofibrosis treated with ruxolitinib and effect of dose modifications on efficacy outcomes.

PURPOSE: Ruxolitinib is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1/JAK2 inhibitor approved in the US for the treatment of intermediate-or high-risk myelofibrosis (MF). Because thrombopoietin and erythropoietin signal through JAK2, dose-dependent cytopenias are expected with treatment. In the COMFORT-I (COntrolled Myelofibrosis study with ORal JAK inhibitor Treatment I) trial, these cytopenias were effectively managed with dose adjustments. These analyses were conducted to evaluate the relationship between ruxolitinib titrated doses and changes in platelet count and hemoglobin level as well as efficacy measures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: COMFORT-I was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 309 patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk MF and a platelet count ≥100 × 10(9)/L. Ruxolitinib starting doses were 15 and 20 mg twice daily (bis in die [BID]) for patients with baseline platelet counts of 100-200 × 10(9)/L and >200 × 10(9)/L, respectively. Percentage changes from baseline to week 24 in spleen volume and MF-related symptoms were assessed in subgroups defined by final titrated dose (average daily dose during weeks 21 to 24). RESULTS: The median final titrated doses for patients starting at doses of 15 and 20 mg BID were 10 and 20 mg BID, respectively, at week 24. Most dose reductions occurred in the first 8-12 weeks of treatment and coincided with decreases in platelet count and hemoglobin level. Subsequently, platelet counts stabilized and hemoglobin levels gradually returned to near baseline levels (red blood cell transfusion rates followed a similar trend). Final titrated doses of ≥10 mg BID were associated with clinically meaningful improvements in MF-related symptoms that were comparable across doses, while marginally greater reductions in spleen volume were observed at higher doses. CONCLUSION: This COMFORT-I analysis shows that dose-dependent cytopenias were effectively managed with ruxolitinib dose adjustments, and titrated doses of ≥10 mg BID were associated with clinically meaningful reductions in spleen volume and symptom improvement at week 24.

Interim analysis of safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis and low platelet counts.

BACKGROUND: Ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, demonstrated improvements in spleen volume, symptoms, and survival over placebo and best available therapy in intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis patients with baseline platelet counts ≥100 × 109/L in phase III studies. The most common adverse events were dose-dependent anemia and thrombocytopenia, which were anticipated because thrombopoietin and erythropoietin signal through JAK2. These events were manageable, rarely leading to treatment discontinuation. Because approximately one-quarter of MF patients have platelet counts <100 × 109/L consequent to their disease, ruxolitinib was evaluated in this subset of patients using lower initial doses. Interim results of a phase II study of ruxolitinib in myelofibrosis patients with baseline platelet counts of 50-100 × 109/L are reported. METHODS: Ruxolitinib was initiated at a dose of 5 mg twice daily (BID), and doses could be increased by 5 mg once daily every 4 weeks to 10 mg BID if platelet counts remained adequate. Additional dosage increases required evidence of suboptimal efficacy. Assessments included measurement of spleen volume by MRI, MF symptoms by MF Symptom Assessment Form v2.0 Total Symptom Score [TSS]), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC); EORTC QLQ-C30, and safety/tolerability. RESULTS: By week 24, 62% of patients achieved stable doses ≥10 mg BID. Median reductions in spleen volume and TSS were 24.2% and 43.8%, respectively. Thrombocytopenia necessitating dose reductions and dose interruptions occurred in 12 and 8 patients, respectively, and occurred mainly in patients with baseline platelet counts ≤75 × 109/L. Seven patients experienced platelet count increases ≥15 × 109/L. Mean hemoglobin levels remained stable over the treatment period. Two patients discontinued for adverse events: 1 for grade 4 retroperitoneal hemorrhage secondary to multiple and suspected pre-existing renal artery aneurysms and 1 for grade 4 thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that a low starting dose of ruxolitinib with escalation to 10 mg BID may be appropriate in myelofibrosis patients with low platelet counts.

Efficacy, safety and survival with ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis: results of a median 2-year follow-up of COMFORT-I.

COMFORT-I is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the Janus kinase 1/Janus kinase 2 inhibitor ruxolitinib in 309 patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis. This analysis of COMFORT-I describes the long-term efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib (median follow-up, 2 years). Spleen volume was measured by magnetic resonance imaging, and quality of life was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Overall survival was determined according to randomized treatment group. At the time of this analysis, 100 of 155 patients randomized to ruxolitinib were still receiving treatment. All patients randomized to placebo crossed over to ruxolitinib or discontinued within 3 months of the primary analysis (median time to crossover, 41 weeks). Mean spleen volume reductions in the ruxolitinib group were 31.6% at week 24 and 34.9% at week 96; improvements in quality of life measures were also maintained. Improved survival was observed for ruxolitinib (n=27 deaths) versus placebo (n=41 deaths) (hazard ratio=0.58; 95% confidence interval: 0.36, 0.95; P=0.03). The incidence of new-onset grade 3 or 4 anemia and thrombocytopenia decreased over time to levels observed in patients receiving placebo. These data indicate that ruxolitinib treatment provides durable reductions in spleen volume and improvements in quality of life and suggest a continued survival advantage for ruxolitinib over placebo.

Progressive burden of myelofibrosis in untreated patients: assessment of patient-reported outcomes in patients randomized to placebo in the COMFORT-I study.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and spleen size in patients not receiving therapy (N=154) in COMFORT-I, a randomized, double-blind study of the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis were evaluated. Baseline PROs indicated considerable disease burden. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 scores, modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form v2.0 Total Symptom Score, and Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Fatigue scores worsened from baseline through week 24. At weeks 4 and 24, 18.3 and 40.2% of patients evaluated their condition as having worsened from baseline on the Patient Global Impression of Change questionnaire. Spleen volume and palpable length increased in most patients. These results demonstrate the progressive and debilitating effects of myelofibrosis. The consequences of delayed intervention should be assessed in the management of patients with myelofibrosis and treatment should be considered as clinically indicated for symptomatic relief or splenomegaly control.

Population pharmacokinetic analysis of orally-administered ruxolitinib (INCB018424 Phosphate) in patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF), post-polycythemia vera myelofibrosis (PPV-MF) or post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis (PET MF).

Ruxolitinib is a selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 and 2, which is approved to treat intermediate or high-risk myelofibrosis. The population pharmacokinetics for ruxolitinib were characterized by a modeling dataset of 272 subjects from a Phase 2 and a Phase 3 study and validated by an external validation dataset of 142 subjects from a second Phase 3 study. The PK of ruxolitinib was adequately described by a two-compartment disposition model with first-order absorption and linear elimination. All model parameters were estimated with good precision. Gender and body weight were identified as covariates for oral clearance (CL/F) and volume of distribution for central compartment (Vc/F), respectively. Apparent oral clearance was 22.1 and 17.7 L/h for a typical male and female subject, respectively, with 39.1% unexplained inter-individual variability (IIV). The typical Vc /F for a subject with a median weight of 72.9 kg was estimated to be 58.6 L, with 28% unexplained IIV. The model predictive performance was validated by visual predictive check (VPC) and the external validation dataset. This analysis suggests that effects of gender and body weight on ruxolitinib PK are not clinically significant and hence no dose adjustment is needed based on gender and weight.

The clinical benefit of ruxolitinib across patient subgroups: analysis of a placebo-controlled, Phase III study in patients with myelofibrosis.

Myelofibrosis (MF) patients can present with a wide spectrum of disease characteristics. We analysed the consistency of ruxolitinib efficacy across patient subgroups in the COntrolled MyeloFibrosis Study With ORal JAK Inhibitor Treatment (COMFORT-I,) a double-blind trial, where patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk MF were randomized to twice-daily oral ruxolitinib (n = 155) or placebo (n = 154). Subgroups analysed included MF subtype (primary, post-polycythaemia vera, post-essential thrombocythaemia), age (≤65, > 65 years), International Prognostic Scoring System risk group, baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0, 1, ≥2), JAK2 V617F mutation (positive, negative), baseline haemoglobin level (≥100, <100 g/l), baseline platelet count (100-200 × 10(9)/l, >200 × 10(9)/l), baseline palpable spleen size (≤10, >10 cm), and baseline quartile of spleen volume and Total Symptom Score (TSS; Q1 = lowest, Q4 = highest). Mean percentage change from baseline to week 24 in spleen volume and TSS were calculated for ruxolitinib and placebo in each subgroup. Overall survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method according to original randomization group. In ruxolitinib-treated patients, reductions in spleen volume and TSS and evidence of improved survival relative to placebo across subgroups were consistent with those seen in the COMFORT-I population, confirming that ruxolitinib is an effective therapy for the spectrum of MF patients studied in COMFORT-I.

Effect of ruxolitinib therapy on myelofibrosis-related symptoms and other patient-reported outcomes in COMFORT-I: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of ruxolitinib on symptom burden and quality of life (QoL) and to evaluate the ability of the modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) v2.0 to measure meaningful changes in myelofibrosis-related symptoms in patients with myelofibrosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: COMFORT-I (Controlled Myelofibrosis Study With Oral JAK Inhibitor Treatment-I) is a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study evaluating ruxolitinib in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis. Exploratory analyses were conducted on the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessments: modified MFSAF v2.0 (individual symptoms and Total Symptom Score [TSS]), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Fatigue Scale, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). RESULTS: Patients receiving ruxolitinib experienced improvements in individual myelofibrosis-related symptoms, although patients receiving placebo experienced worsening (P < .001). The majority (91%) of ruxolitinib-treated patients designated as ≥ 50% TSS responders (≥ 50% TSS improvement) self-reported their condition as either "Much improved" or "Very much improved" on the PGIC. These patients achieved significant improvements in the EORTC QLQ-C30 functional domains and Global Health Status/QoL versus patients receiving placebo, who experienced worsening on these measures (P ≤ .0135). Ruxolitinib-treated patients with a lesser degree of symptom improvement (< 50% TSS responders) also achieved improvements over placebo on these measures. The degree of spleen volume reduction with ruxolitinib correlated with improvements in TSS, PGIC, PROMIS Fatigue Scale, and EORTC Global Health Status/QoL. Ruxolitinib-treated patients who achieved a ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume experienced the greatest improvements in these PROs. CONCLUSION: Ruxolitinib-treated patients achieved clinically meaningful improvements in myelofibrosis-related symptoms and QoL, but patients receiving placebo reported worsening of symptoms and other PROs.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Ruxolitinib, a selective inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and 2, has clinically significant activity in myelofibrosis. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis to twice-daily oral ruxolitinib (155 patients) or placebo (154 patients). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a reduction in spleen volume of 35% or more at 24 weeks, assessed by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Secondary end points included the durability of response, changes in symptom burden (assessed by the total symptom score), and overall survival. RESULTS: The primary end point was reached in 41.9% of patients in the ruxolitinib group as compared with 0.7% in the placebo group (P<0.001). A reduction in spleen volume was maintained in patients who received ruxolitinib; 67.0% of the patients with a response had the response for 48 weeks or more. There was an improvement of 50% or more in the total symptom score at 24 weeks in 45.9% of patients who received ruxolitinib as compared with 5.3% of patients who received placebo (P<0.001). Thirteen deaths occurred in the ruxolitinib group as compared with 24 deaths in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.98; P=0.04). The rate of discontinuation of the study drug because of adverse events was 11.0% in the ruxolitinib group and 10.6% in the placebo group. Among patients who received ruxolitinib, anemia and thrombocytopenia were the most common adverse events, but they rarely led to discontinuation of the drug (in one patient for each event). Two patients had transformation to acute myeloid leukemia; both were in the ruxolitinib group. CONCLUSIONS: Ruxolitinib, as compared with placebo, provided significant clinical benefits in patients with myelofibrosis by reducing spleen size, ameliorating debilitating myelofibrosis-related symptoms, and improving overall survival. These benefits came at the cost of more frequent anemia and thrombocytopenia in the early part of the treatment period. (Funded by Incyte; COMFORT-I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00952289.).

Cdc25A-inhibitory properties and antineoplastic activity of bisperoxovanadium analogues.

Bisperoxovanadium (bpV) compounds are irreversible protein tyrosine phosphatase (PTP) inhibitors with a spectrum of activity distinct from that of vanadium salts. We studied the efficacy of a panel of bpVs as antineoplastic agents in vitro and in vivo with a view to investigating phosphatases as potential antineoplastic targets. The Cdc25A dual-specificity phosphatase is an oncoprotein required for progression through G(1)-S. It cooperates with oncogenic Ras to transform cells and is overexpressed in several cancers. Cdc25A is therefore an attractive candidate phosphatase target for the antineoplastic activity of bpV compounds. Cytotoxicity was examined in 28 cancer cell lines and in vivo efficacy was examined in a DA3 murine mammary carcinoma model. In vitro phosphatase assays were used to directly measure phosphatase inhibition, comparing Cdc25A to hVH2/DSP4, leukocyte antigen related/receptor type PTPF catalytic domain (LAR), Yersinia pestis phosphatase (YOPH), and T-cell PTPase/non-receptor type PTP2 (TCPTP). CDK2 activity and Rb phosphorylation were examined by immunocomplex kinase assays and Western blot. Cdc25A is at least 20-fold more sensitive to bpV inhibition than hVH2/DSP4, and 3- to 10- fold more sensitive than TCPTP and LAR. bpV inhibition of Cdc25A in cells leads to CDK2 inactivation and hypophosphorylation Rb, resulting in G1-S arrest and induction of p53-independent apoptosis. The most cytotoxic analogue, bpV[4,7-dimethyl-1,10-phenanthroline-bisperoxo-oxo-vanadium (Me2Phen)], shows submicromolar IC50s against a panel of cell lines and inhibited tumor growth by 80% in mice. These results demonstrate that bpVs may have significant antineoplastic activity. In addition, they are in vitro and in vivo inhibitors of phosphatases including Cdc25A, suggesting that phosphatases may be appropriate targets for novel antineoplastic agents and that further development of these agents, targeting them to specific phosphatases such as CDC25A, may lead to novel agents with enhanced antineoplastic activity.