Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32624445›Full record

ArticleClinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia2020

Real-World Outcomes of Ruxolitinib Treatment for Polycythemia Vera.

Alexander Coltoff, Ruben Mesa, Jason Gotlib, Jessica Shulman, Raajit K Rampal, Olivia Siwoski, Abdulraheem Yacoub, Alison Moliterno, Anna Yang, Evan Braunstein and 8 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Weight gain secondary to the use of Janus kinase inhibitors.Archives of dermatological research · 2023
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

Alexander ColtoffDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Columbia New York Presbyterian, New York, NY.
Ruben MesaMays Cancer Center, UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson, San Antonio, TX.
Jason GotlibDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology, Cancer Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Jessica ShulmanDepartment of Leukemia, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Raajit K RampalDepartment of Leukemia, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Olivia SiwoskiDivision of Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapeutics (HMCT), Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Cancer Center, Westwood, KS.
Abdulraheem YacoubDivision of Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapeutics (HMCT), Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Cancer Center, Westwood, KS.
Alison MoliternoDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Anna YangDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Evan BraunsteinDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Aaron T GerdsLeukemia and Myeloid Disorders Program, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Gabriela S HobbsCancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Elliott F WintonWinship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Swati GoelDivision of Hematology, Department of Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY.
Martha WadleighDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.
Douglas TremblayTisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Erin MoshierTisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
John MascarenhasTisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. Electronic address: john.mascarenhas@mssm.edu.
Johns Hopkins University · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USThe University of Kansas Cancer Center · USAlbert Einstein College of Medicine · USCleveland Clinic · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USEmory University · USHarvard University · USPresbyterian Hospital · USStanford University · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USTisch Hospital · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
TISSUE CULTURE---COREP30CA054174 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI Robin Jean Leach · 1991 to 2026
$59.1M
Dana Farber/Harvard Cancer Consortium Career Development Program in Clinical OncologyK12CA087723 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI David Tsai Ting · 2002 to 2026
$17.9M
NCI NIH HHS K12 CA087723NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P30 CA054174
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRuxolitinib is approved for the treatment of polycythemia vera (PV) with hydroxyurea resistance or intolerance. Approval was based on the phase III RESPONSE trial, which demonstrated efficacy in a highly selected patient population. MATERIALS AND

methodsTo characterize the tolerability and outcomes of ruxolitinib outside of a clinical trial, we performed a multi-center retrospective analysis of patients with PV treated with ruxolitinib at 11 participating sites across the United States. Outcomes of interest included change in phlebotomy requirements after starting ruxolitinib and spleen response, as these were included in the primary composite outcome in the RESPONSE trial.

resultsOne hundred twenty-six patients met eligibility criteria, and the median duration of follow-up was 22.4 months (range, 0-63.0 months). At 32 weeks after starting ruxolitinib, the percentage of patients who received at least 1 phlebotomy was significantly decreased compared with before ruxolitinib (37% vs. 56%; relative risk [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.84; P < .001). Phlebotomy requirements were similarly decreased in patients who had received at least 3 phlebotomies prior to ruxolitinib initiation (28% vs. 17%; RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.13-2.40; P < .01). Resolution of palpable splenomegaly was also documented (48% vs. 20%; RR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.70-3.53; P < .0001). A total of 9.5% of patients discontinued ruxolitinib owing to treatment-emergent adverse events, and 81.7% of patients were receiving ruxolitinib at last known follow-up.

conclusionThese real-world results are similar to those reported from the RESPONSE trial, although additional follow-up is necessary to assess long-term outcomes and potential for late-onset toxicity.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansJanus KinasesMaleMiddle AgedNitrilesPolycythemia VeraPyrazolesPyrimidinesTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultJanus KinasesNitrilesPyrazolesPyrimidinesruxolitinibMyeloproliferativeNeoplasmPhlebotomyRESPONSESplenomegaly

Identifiers

PMID32624445
PMCPMC8900057
OpenAlexW3031174418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.