Analysis of predictors of response to ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis in the phase 3b expanded-access JUMP study

References

• Srour SA, Devesa SS, Morton LM, et al. Incidence and patient survival of myeloproliferative neoplasms and myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms in the United States, 2001-2012. Br J Haematol. 2016;174(3):382–396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A. Primary myelofibrosis: 2017 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management. Am J Hematol. 2016;91(12):1262–1271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa RA, Niblack J, Wadleigh M, et al. The burden of fatigue and quality of life in myeloproliferative disorders (MPDs): an international Internet-based survey of 1179 MPD patients. Cancer. 2007;109(1):68–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Myeloproliferative neoplasms. Version 2. 2019; [cited 2020 Jun 15]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Kröger NM, Deeg JH, Olavarria E, et al. Indication and management of allogeneic stem cell transplantation in primary myelofibrosis: a consensus process by an EBMT/ELN international working group. Leukemia. 2015;29(11):2126–2133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Guglielmelli P, Pardanani A, et al. Myelofibrosis treatment algorithm 2018. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8(8):72.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Gotlib J, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):799–807.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison C, Kiladjian JJ, Al-Ali HK, et al. JAK inhibition with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy for myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):787–798.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison CN, Vannucchi AM, Kiladjian J-J, on behalf of the COMFORT-II investigators, et al. Long-term findings from COMFORT-II, a phase 3 study of ruxolitinib vs best available therapy for myelofibrosis. Leukemia. 2016;30(8):1701–1707.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mead AJ, Milojkovic D, Knapper S, et al. Response to ruxolitinib in patients with intermediate-1-, intermediate-2-, and high-risk myelofibrosis: results of the UK ROBUST trial. Br J Haematol. 2015;170(1):29–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervantes F, Pereira A. Does ruxolitinib prolong the survival of patients with myelofibrosis? Blood. 2017;129(7):832–837.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Gotlib J, for the COMFORT-I investigators, et al. Long-term treatment with ruxolitinib for patients with myelofibrosis: 5-year update from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 COMFORT-I trial. J Hematol Oncol. 2017;10(1):55.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Al-Ali HK, Griesshammer M, le Coutre P, 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vardiman JW, Thiele J, Arber DA, 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barosi G, Mesa RA, Thiele J, International Working Group for Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT), 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervantes F, Dupriez B, Pereira A, et al. New prognostic scoring system for primary myelofibrosis based on a study of the International Working Group for Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment. Blood. 2009;113(13):2895–2901.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Cervantes F, Mesa R, et al. Revised response criteria for myelofibrosis: International Working Group-Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT) and European LeukemiaNet (ELN) consensus report. Blood. 2013;122(8):1395–1398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison CN, Mesa RA, Kiladjian J-J, et al. Health-related quality of life and symptoms in patients with myelofibrosis treated with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy. Br J Haematol. 2013;162(2):229–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter GC, Liepa AM, Zimmermann AH, et al. Validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lymphoma (FACT-LYM) in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Blood. 2008;112(11):2376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cella D, Eton DT, Lai JS, et al. Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2002;24(6):547–561.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passamonti F, Cervantes F, Vannucchi AM, et al. Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) predicts progression to acute myeloid leukemia in primary myelofibrosis. Blood. 2010;116(15):2857–2858.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Gotlib J, et al. The clinical benefit of ruxolitinib across patient subgroups: analysis of a placebo-controlled, Phase III study in patients with myelofibrosis. Br J Haematol. 2013;161(4):508–516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palandri F, Palumbo GA, Bonifacio M, et al. Baseline factors associated with response to ruxolitinib: an independent study on 408 patients with myelofibrosis. Oncotarget. 2017;8(45):79073–79086.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar