All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the MPN Advocates Network.

The MPN Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy

Introducing

Now you can personalise
your MPN Hub experience!

Bookmark content to read later

Select your specific areas of interest

View content recommended for you

Find out more
  TRANSLATE

The MPN Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the MPN Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The MPN Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

Steering CommitteeAbout UsNewsletterContact
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.

The MPN Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by AOP Health and GSK, and supported through an educational grant from Bristol Myers Squibb. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.

2023-12-27T11:16:01.000Z

TRANSFORM-1: Key safety and efficacy results

Dec 27, 2023
Share:
Learning objective: After reading this article, learners will be able to cite key efficacy and safety data from the phase III TRANSFORM-1 trial.

Bookmark this article

Test your knowledge! Take our quick quiz before and after you read this article to find out if you improved your knowledge. Results help us to improve content and continually provide open-access education.

Ruxolitinib (RUX) monotherapy is currently the standard of care for patients diagnosed with myelofibrosis, with spleen volume reduction ≥35% (SVR35) at Week 24 consistently in the range of 29%–49%.1 While patients experience symptom improvement and spleen volume reduction ≥35%, limited benefit remains in key clinical outcomes.1 Navitoclax (NAV), a novel oral B-cell lymphoma-extra-large and B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor in combination with RUX has shown antitumor activity and clinical benefit in the recent phase II REFINE trial (NCT03222609).

At the 65th American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition, Pemmaraju presented key efficacy and safety data from the phase III TRANSFORM-1 study (NCT04472598), the first randomized clinical trial investigating NAV + RUX combination compared with RUX + placebo (PBO) in patients with Janus kinase inhibitor-naïve myelofibrosis. We summarize the key points below.

Study design1

  • A total of 252 patients were enrolled in the study and randomized 1:1
    • NAV 100/200 mg once daily + RUX 15/20 mg twice daily (n = 125)
    • RUX 15/20 mg twice daily + PBO (n = 127)
  • The primary endpoint was SVR35 at Week 24
  • Secondary endpoints included SVR35 at any time, duration of SVR35, and change in Total Symptom Score (TSS) from baseline to Week 24
  • Patient eligibility criteria are shown in Table 1

Table 1. Eligibility criteria*

Eligibility criteria

Age ≥18 years

ECOG performance score ≤ 2

Intermediate-2 or high-risk MF

Measurable splenomegaly

Evidence of symptoms

No prior JAK inhibitor therapy

ECOG, European Co-operative Oncology Group; JAK, Janus kinase; MF, myelofibrosis.
*Adapted from Pemmaraju,.1


Results1

  • Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the two treatment arms (Table 2)
  • The median follow-up was 14.9 months

Table 2. Baseline patient characteristics*

Characteristic, % (unless otherwise stated)

NAV + RUX (n = 125)

RUX + PBO (n = 127)

Age, years

70

69

Sex, male

50

64

Number of prior lines of therapy, median (range)

1

1

Median spleen volume, cm3

1,441

1,639

Median TSS

21

24

DIPSS+ risk

              Intermediate-1

6

4

              Intermediate-2

83

87

              High-risk

10

9

Driver mutation

              JAK2V617F

65

62

              CALR

18

20

              MPLW515

11

8

HMR mutations

48

43

CALR, calreticulin; DIPSS+, Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System plus; HMR, high molecular risk; JAK, Janus kinase; MPL, ; myeloproliferative leukemia virus oncogene; NAV, navitoclax; PBO, placebo; RUX, ruxolitinib; TSS, Total Symptom Score.
*Adapted from Pemmaraju.1


Efficacy

  • The median time to first SVR35 response was similar in both treatment groups
  • 12.3 months in the combination group vs 12.4 months in the placebo group
  • SVR35 at Week 24 was twice as high in the combination group vs the placebo group (Figure 1)

Figure 1. SVR35 response at Week 24 and at any time*  

NAV, navitoclax; PBO, placebo; RUX, ruxolitinib; SVR35, spleen volume reduction ≥35%.
*Adapted from Pemmaraju.1

  • The mean change in TSS from baseline at Week 24 in the combination group was 9.7 vs 11.1 in the placebo group (p = 0.2852).
  • Reduction in TSS ≥50% at Week 24 was experienced by 39.2% of patients in the combination group vs 41.7% of patients in the placebo group.
  • NAV + RUX doses were higher in responders vs non-responders

Safety

  • 33% of patients discontinued treatment
    • The most common cause of discontinuation was adverse events (AEs), 14% in the NAV + RUX group and 11% in the RUX + PBO group
  • The most common AEs of any grade experienced by >30% of patients receiving NAV are shown in Figure 2

Figure 2. Most common AEs of any grade experienced by 30% of patients receiving NAV* 

AE, adverse event; NAV, navitoclax; PBO, placebo; RUX, ruxolitinib.
*Adapted from Pemmaraju.1

  • Grade ≥3 AEs were experienced by 85% of patients in the combination group and 70% of patients in the placebo group
  • Serious AEs were experienced by 26% of patients in the combination group and 32% of patients in the placebo group
  • Dose interruptions or reductions were mainly due to thrombocytopenia
    • None were due to bleeding events

Conclusion

This was the first randomized clinical trial investigating NAV + RUX in this setting. SVR35 at Week 24 was doubled for patients treated with combination therapy compared with RUX + PBO. AEs were manageable, mainly through dose modification. Further evaluations are ongoing to investigate overall survival and clinical responses in patient subgroups.

  1. Pemmaraju N. Transform-1: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, international phase 3 study of navitoclax in combination with ruxolitinib versus ruxolitinib plus placebo in patients with untreated myelofibrosis. Oral abstract #620. 65th American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition; Dec 10, 2023; San Diego, US.

Your opinion matters

What do you consider to be the highest unmet need for patients with myelofibrosis?​
9 votes - 2 days left ...

Newsletter

Subscribe to get the best content related to MPN delivered to your inbox