| Literature DB >> 29074595 |
Claire N Harrison1, Adam J Mead2, Anesh Panchal3, Sonia Fox3, Christina Yap3, Emmanouela Gbandi3, Aimee Houlton3, Samah Alimam1, Joanne Ewing4, Marion Wood5, Frederick Chen6, Jason Coppell7, Nicki Panoskaltsis8, Steven Knapper9, Sahra Ali10, Angela Hamblin11, Robyn Scherber12,13, Amylou C Dueck14, Nicholas C P Cross15, Ruben Mesa13, Mary Frances McMullin16.
Abstract
Treatments for high-risk essential thrombocythemia (ET) address thrombocytosis, disease-related symptoms, as well as risks of thrombosis, hemorrhage, transformation to myelofibrosis, and leukemia. Patients resistant/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC) have a poor outlook. MAJIC (ISRCTN61925716) is a randomized phase 2 trial of ruxolitinib (JAK1/2 inhibitor) vs best available therapy (BAT) in ET and polycythemia vera patients resistant or intolerant to HC. Here, findings of MAJIC-ET are reported, where the modified intention-to-treat population included 58 and 52 patients randomized to receive ruxolitinib or BAT, respectively. There was no evidence of improvement in complete response within 1 year reported in 27 (46.6%) patients treated with ruxolitinib vs 23 (44.2%) with BAT (P = .40). At 2 years, rates of thrombosis, hemorrhage, and transformation were not significantly different; however, some disease-related symptoms improved in patients receiving ruxolitinib relative to BAT. Molecular responses were uncommon; there were 2 complete molecular responses (CMR) and 1 partial molecular response in CALR-positive ruxolitinib-treated patients. Transformation to myelofibrosis occurred in 1 CMR patient, presumably because of the emergence of a different clone, raising questions about the relevance of CMR in ET patients. Grade 3 and 4 anemia occurred in 19% and 0% of ruxolitinib vs 0% (both grades) in the BAT arm, and grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia in 5.2% and 1.7% of ruxolitinib vs 0% (both grades) of BAT-treated patients. Rates of discontinuation or treatment switching did not differ between the 2 trial arms. The MAJIC-ET trial suggests that ruxolitinib is not superior to current second-line treatments for ET. This trial was registered at www.isrctn.com as #ISRCTN61925716.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29074595 PMCID: PMC6410531 DOI: 10.1182/blood-2017-05-785790
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Blood ISSN: 0006-4971 Impact factor: 22.113