Splenectomy in Myelofibrosis: Indications, Efficacy, and Complications

Splenomegaly, which may range from a few centimeters below the left costal border to massive dimensions, is one of the most characteristic features in patients with advanced myelofibrosis (MF). Splenectomy may offer an effective therapeutic option for treating massive splenomegaly in patients with MF, and especially in cases of disease refractory to conventional drugs, but it is associated with a number of complications as well as substantial morbidity and mortality. Whether splenectomy should be performed before allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation is also controversial, and there is a lack of prospective randomized clinical trials that assess the role of splenectomy before hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with MF. Although splenectomy is not routinely performed before transplantation, it may be appropriate in patients with massive splenomegaly and related symptoms, so long as the higher risk of graft failure in such cases is taken into account. This review aims to describe the efficacy, indications, and complications of splenectomy in patients with MF; and to evaluate the long-term impact of splenectomy on patient survival and risk of disease transformation

Reply to the letter to the editor “chronic disseminated candidiasis” by Kenneth Rolston

not don

Pegfilgrastim in primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia following frontline bendamustine plus rituximab treatment in patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a single center, real-life experience

In this prospective study, the impact of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-2 CSF) administered during induction treatment with bendamustine plus rituximab for indolent non- Hodgkin Llymphoma (NHL) was evaluated by comparing patients who received secondary prophylaxis with filgrastim (control group) versus. patients who received pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis (peg-group). The primary endpoint was the incidence rate of febrile neutropenia (FN)- related chemotherapy disruptions (regarding dose-dense and/or dose-intensity of schedule). The Ssecondary endpoint included days of hospitalization due to FN, and G-CSF-related side effects (grade ≥3 WHO toxicity criteria) in each group

A Frontline Approach With Peripherally Inserted Versus Centrally Inserted Central Venous Catheters for Remission Induction Chemotherapy Phase of Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Randomized Comparison

BACKGROUND: The incidence of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related adverse events has been uncertain in the setting of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with the incidence of centrally inserted central catheter (CICC) adverse events. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a monocentric, randomized trial of patients with previously untreated AML. Of the 93 patients, 46 had received a PICC and 47 had received a CICC as frontline intravascular device. Thereafter, all patients underwent intensive chemotherapy for hematologic remission induction. The primary endpoint was catheter-related (CR)-bloodstream infection (BSI) and venous thrombosis (VT) rate. The secondary endpoints catheter malfunction, catheter removal, and patient overall survival. RESULTS: The CR-BSI and CR-VT rate in the PICC and CICC groups was 13% and 49%, respectively, with a difference of 36 percentage points (relative risk for CR-BSI or CR-VT, 0.266; P = .0003). The CR-BSI incidence was 1.4 and 7.8 per 1000 catheters daily in the PICC and CICC groups, respectively. Among the CR thromboses, the symptomatic VT rate was 2.1% in the PICC group and 10.6% in the CICC group. In the CICC group, 16 of the 47 patients (34%) had the catheter removed for BSI (n = 5), septic thrombophlebitis (n = 4), VT (n = 2), or malfunction (n = 5) a median of 7 days after insertion. In the PICC group, only 6 of the 46 patients (13%) required catheter removal for VT (n = 2) or malfunction (n = 4). At a median follow-up of 30 days, 6 patients in the CICC group died of CR complications versus none of the patients in the PICC group (P = .012). Using PICCs, the reduction in BSI and symptomatic VT decreased mortality from CR infection and venous thromboembolism. In contrast, the CICC approach led to early catheter removal mostly for difficult-to-treat infectious pathogens. CONCLUSION: Our data have confirmed that BSI and symptomatic VT are the major complications affecting frontline central intravascular device-related morbidity in the leukemia setting. The use of a PICC is safer than that of a CICC and maintains the effectiveness for patients with AML undergoing chemotherapy, with an approximate fourfold lower combined risk of infection or thrombosis at 30 days

The use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents is safe and effective in the management of anaemia in myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) were combined with ruxolitinib in 59 anaemic myelofibrosis patients (93% with Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System [DIPSS] intermediate-2/high risk; 52·5% transfusion-dependent). Anaemia response (AR) rate was 54% and 76% of patients responded at 5 years. A further 15% displayed minor improvement in anaemia and 78% of patients reduced spleen size. Endogenous erythropoietin levels <125 u/l correlated with a higher AR rate (63% vs. 20%, P = 0·008). No thrombotic events or other toxicities occurred. Overall survival was 62% at 4 years, influenced by DIPSS and transfusion dependency. ESAs seem effective in improving anaemia in ruxruxolitinib-treated myelofibrosis patients