A randomized study of pomalidomide vs placebo in persons with myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion dependence

RBC-transfusion dependence is common in persons with myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN)-associated myelofibrosis. The objective of this study was to determine the rates of RBC-transfusion independence after therapy with pomalidomide vs placebo in persons with MPN-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion dependence. Two hundred and fifty-two subjects (intent-to-treat (ITT) population) including 229 subjects confirmed by central review (modified ITT population) were randomly assigned (2:1) to pomalidomide or placebo. Trialists and subjects were blinded to treatment allocation. Primary end point was proportion of subjects achieving RBC-transfusion independence within 6 months. One hundred and fifty-two subjects received pomalidomide and 77 placebo. Response rates were 16% (95% confidence interval (CI), 11, 23%) vs 16% (8, 26% P=0.87). Response in the pomalidomide cohort was associated with ⩽4 U RBC/28 days (odds ratio (OR)=3.1; 0.9, 11.1), age ⩽65 (OR=2.3; 0.9, 5.5) and type of MPN-associated myelofibrosis (OR=2.6; 0.7, 9.5). Responses in the placebo cohort were associated with ⩽4 U RBC/28 days (OR=8.6; 0.9, 82.3), white blood cell at randomization >25 × 10(9)/l (OR=4.9; 0.8, 28.9) and interval from diagnosis to randomization >2 years (OR=4.9; 1.1, 21.9). Pomalidomide was associated with increased rates of oedema and neutropenia but these adverse effects were manageable. Pomalidomide and placebo had similar RBC-transfusion-independence response rates in persons with MPN-associated RBC-transfusion dependence

CCC meets ICU: Redefining the role of critical care of cancer patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Currently the majority of cancer patients are considered ineligible for intensive care treatment and oncologists are struggling to get their patients admitted to intensive care units. Critical care and oncology are frequently two separate worlds that communicate rarely and thus do not share novel developments in their fields. However, cancer medicine is rapidly improving and cancer is eventually becoming a chronic disease. Oncology is therefore characterized by a growing number of older and medically unfit patients that receive numerous novel drug classes with unexpected side effects.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>All of these changes will generate more medically challenging patients in acute distress that need to be considered for intensive care. An intense exchange between intensivists, oncologists, psychologists and palliative care specialists is warranted to communicate the developments in each field in order to improve triage and patient treatment. Here, we argue that "critical care of cancer patients" needs to be recognized as a medical subspecialty and that there is an urgent need to develop it systematically.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>As prognosis of cancer improves, novel therapeutic concepts are being introduced and more and more older cancer patients receive full treatment the number of acutely ill patients is growing significantly. This development a major challenge to current concepts of intensive care and it needs to be redefined who of these patients should be treated, for how long and how intensively.</p