To Treat or Not to Treat? Understanding Treatment Patterns in Patients with Lower-Risk Myelofibrosis at the Time of Enrollment in the MOST Study
Authors: Komrokji Rami S. , Stein Brady L. , Scherber Robyn M. , Kalafut Patricia , Ren Haobo , Verstovsek Srdan 
Published: November 2020

Background: Myelofibrosis (MF) is a chronic Philadelphia chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) characterized by extramedullary hematopoiesis, bone marrow fibrosis, splenomegaly, constitutional symptoms, and diminished quality of life. Treatment decisions may involve a variety of factors including prognosis and symptomatology. Data regarding real-world disease and demographic factors that contribute to therapy initiation and choice in pts with lower risk MF are limited. This analysis of data from the ongoing Myelofibrosis and Essential Thrombocythemia Observational STudy (MOST; NCT02953704) assessed whether these factors differ for lower risk pts who were treated vs untreated at enrollment.
Methods: MOST is a longitudinal, noninterventional, prospective, observational study in pts with MF or essential thrombocythemia enrolled at clinical practices within the US. Pts included in the analysis (≥18 y), had low risk MF by the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS; Blood. 2010;115:1703), or intermediate-1 (INT-1) risk by age &gt;65 y alone. Pt data were entered into an electronic case report form during usual-care visits over a planned 36-month observation period. Pt-reported symptom burden was assessed using the MPN-Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF); Total Symptom Score (TSS) was calculated (0 [absent] to 100 [worst imaginable]; J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4098). Data were analyzed with basic descriptive and inferential statistics.
Results: Of 233 pts with MF enrolled at 124 sites between 11/29/2016 and 03/29/2019, 205 were included in this analysis; 28 were excluded for being INT-1 risk for reasons other than age. Of the 205 pts, 85 (41.5%) were low- and 120 (58.5%) were INT-1 risk; 56.5% (48/85) and 59.2% (71/120), respectively, were being treated at enrollment.
Pt characteristics are listed in Table 1A. Fewer low- vs INT-1 risk pts were JAK2 V617F or MPL positive, and more were CALR positive. The proportion of pts with palpable splenomegaly was similar for treated low- and INT-1 risk pts. In low risk pts, the proportion of pts with palpable splenomegaly was higher in untreated vs treated pts; whereas, in INT-1 risk pts, the opposite was observed (ie, lower proportion in untreated vs treated pts). Blood counts were generally similar across cohorts, except median leukocytes were lower for low risk treated pts and platelet counts were elevated in low- vs INT-1 risk pts. The proportion of pts with comorbidities was similar across cohorts, except for fewer cardiovascular comorbidities in low- vs INT-1 risk pts. Mean TSS was lower in low- vs INT-1 risk pts, but the proportion of pts with TSS ≥20 was greater in treated vs untreated pts in both low- and INT-1 risk groups. Fatigue was the most severe pt-reported symptom in all cohorts. Differences in mean TSS and individual symptom scores between risk groups were not significant (P &gt; 0.05), except itching was worse among INT-1 risk pts (P=0.03). Physician-reported signs and symptoms were generally more frequent for untreated vs treated pts, irrespective of risk (all P &gt; 0.05).
Most low risk (69.4%) and INT-1 risk pts (61.2%) who were currently untreated at enrollment had not received any prior MF-directed treatment (Table 1B); the most common prior treatment among currently untreated pts was hydroxyurea (HU) in both risk groups. Of currently treated pts, HU was the most common MF-directed monotherapy at enrollment in low-risk pts, and ruxolitinib was most common in INT-1 risk pts. No low risk pts and few INT-1 risk pts were currently receiving &gt;1 MF-directed therapy at enrollment.
Conclusion: These real-world data from pts with MF enrolled in MOST show that a substantial proportion of both low- and INT-1 risk pts who had received treatment before enrollment were not being treated at the time of enrollment. Although watch-and-wait is a therapeutic option, the finding that many of these lower risk pts had in fact received prior therapies suggests an unmet need for effective and tolerable second-line treatment options. Treated pts had greater pt-reported symptom burden vs untreated pts, which suggests that high symptom burden may contribute to the decision for treatment. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate symptom burden change with therapy initiation. In this regard, future analyses of data from MOST are planned to assess the longitudinal evolution of the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and management of pts with MF.

Disclosures
Komrokji: Geron: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Acceleron: Honoraria. Stein:Incyte: Research Funding; Kartos: Other: educational content presented; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmaessentia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Scherber:Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kalafut:Incyte: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ren:Incyte: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma Corp: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; ItalPharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding.