This site is intended for Healthcare Professionals outside the US

Splenomegaly is a marker of disease progression1

Larger baseline spleen volume is associated with increased risk of death2

  • 9% increase in risk of death for each additional 500 cm3 of spleen volume at baseline (HR=1.09; 95% CI: 1.03-1.15; P=0.003)2
  • More than 80% of patients with MF experience splenomegaly3,4

Splenomegaly worsens with or without conventional therapies5

Spleen volume increases in the BAT group mirrored those observed with placebo5

Splenomegaly worsens with or without conventional Myelofibrosis therapies - JAKAVI

Adapted from: Mesa RA et al. Haematologica. 2014;99(2):292-298.5

  • Complications associated with splenomegaly include portal hypertension and variceal bleeding6,7
  • In clinical trials, patients treated with best available therapy (BAT) had increases in spleen size that were similar to those who received placebo5
    • BAT included any single treatment or combination of treatments (such as hydroxyurea [47%], glucocorticoids [16%], or no drug treatment [33%])5

Learn about significant spleen reduction with JAKAVI from COMFORT-II Splenomegaly is a debilitating manifestation that contributes to high disease burden and is an important factor to consider when managing MF, regardless of patient prognostic risk categorisation5,8

Next: MF-associated symptoms impact patient QoL

BAT=best available therapy; COMFORT=Controlled Myelofibrosis Study with Oral JAK Inhibitor Treatment; MF=myelofibrosis; QoL=quality of life.

References:

  1. Tefferi A, Barosi G, Mesa RA, et al. International Working Group (IWG) consensus criteria for treatment response in myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia, for the IWG for Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT). Blood. 2006;108(5):1497-1503.
  2. Vannucchi AM, Kantarjian HM, Kiladjian J‐J, et al. A pooled overall survival analysis of the COMFORT studies: 2 randomized phase 3 trials of ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis. Abstract presented at: 55th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Hematology; December 7-10, 2013; New Orleans, LA.
  3. Passamonti F, Cervantes F, Vannucchi AM, et al. A dynamic prognostic model to predict survival in primary myelofibrosis: a study by the IWG-MRT (International Working Group for Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment). Blood. 2010;115(9):1703-1708.
  4. Barosi G. Myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia: diagnostic definition and prognostic classification for clinical studies and treatment guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(9):2954-2970.
  5. Mesa RA, Kiladjian J-J, Verstovsek S, et al. Comparison of placebo and best available therapy for the treatment of myelofibrosis in the phase 3 COMFORT studies. Haematologica. 2014;99(2): 292-298.
  6. Komrokji RS, Verstovsek S, Padron E, List AF. Advances in the management of myelofibrosis. Cancer Control. 2012;19(4):4-15.
  7. Mascarenhas J, Hoffman R. A comprehensive review and analysis of the effect of ruxolitinib therapy on the survival of patients with myelofibrosis. Blood. 2013;121(24):4832-4837.
  8. Barbui T, Barosi G, Birgegard G, et al. Philadelphia-negative classical myeloproliferative neoplasms: critical concepts and management recommendations from European LeukemiaNet. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(6):761-770.