The role of allogeneic stem-cell transplant in myelofibrosis in the era of JAK inhibitors: a case-based review

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) is, at present, the only potentially curative therapy for myelofibrosis (MF). Despite many improvements, outcomes of HSCT are still burdened by substantial morbidity and high transplant-related mortality. Allogeneic transplant is generally considered in intermediate-2 and high-risk patients aged <70 years, but the optimal selection of patients and timing of the procedure remains under debate, as does as the role of JAK inhibitors in candidates for HSCT. Starting from a real-life clinical case scenario, herein we examine some of the crucial issues of HSCT for MF in light of recent refinements on MF risk stratification, data on the use of ruxolitinib before and after transplant and findings on the impact of different conditioning regimens and donor selection

Management of Myelofibrosis during Treatment with Ruxolitinib: A Real-World Perspective in Case of Resistance and/or Intolerance

The development and approval of ruxolitinib, the first JAK1/2 inhibitor indicated to treat myelofibrosis, has improved patient outcomes, with higher spleen and symptoms responses, improved quality of life, and overall survival. Despite this, several unmet needs remain, including the absence of resistance criteria, suboptimal response, the timing of allogeneic transplant, and the management of patients in case of intolerance. Here, we report the results of the second survey led by the “MPN Lab” collaboration, which aimed to report physicians’ perspectives on these topics. As in our first survey, physicians were selected throughout Italy, and we included those with extensive experience in treating myeloproliferative neoplasms and those with less experience representing clinical practice in the real world. The results presented here, summarized using descriptive analyses, highlight the need for a clear definition of response to ruxolitinib as well as recommendations to guide the management of ruxolitinib under specific conditions including anemia, thrombocytopenia, infections, and non-melanoma skin cancers

Facing erythrocytosis: Results of an international physician survey.

We observed a good agreement among hematologists regarding the diagnostic procedures and a widespread awareness regarding the importance of the new 2016 WHO criteria and bone marrow his-tology. On the other side, we observed a marked heterogeneity in treatment practice, regarding both the Hct threshold and the use of anti-platelet agents

A journey through infectious risk associated with ruxolitinib.

Ruxolitinib has proved to be effective for the treatment of patients with myelofibrosis (either primary or secondary) and polycythaemia vera, and its approval led to a significant change in the current treatment algorithm. Despite its efficacy and beyond its well described haematological toxicity, a peculiar immunosuppressive effect emerged as our clinical experience grew, both within and outside of a clinical trial setting. Definite and negative interactions with multiple pathways of the immune system of patients have been reported so far, involving both adaptive and innate immune responses. These pathophysiological mechanisms may contribute to the increased risk of reactivation of silent infections (e.g., tuberculosis, hepatitis B virus and varicella zoster virus) that have been associated with the drug. Even though such infectious events may be fatal or may lead to significant impairment of organ function, compromising the eligibility of patients for an allotransplant procedure, there are no dedicated guidelines that may help us in assessing and managing the risk of developing serious infections. On this basis, our aim for the present work was to review the current knowledge on the pathophysiological mechanisms through which ruxolitinib may exert its immunosuppressive effect, and to illustrate our personal approach to the management of three peculiar clinical scenarios, for which a risk-based algorithm is suggested

Myeloproliferative and lymphoproliferative disorders: State of the art.

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), including polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and primary myelofibrosis (PMF), are clonal disorders complicated mainly by vascular events and transformation to myelofibrosis (for PV and ET) or leukemia. Although secondary malignancies, in particular, lymphoproliferative disorders (LPNs), are rare, they occur at a higher frequency than found in the general population, and there has been recent scientific discussion regarding a hypothetical relationship between treatment with JAK inhibitors in MPN and the risk of development of LPN. This has prompted increased interest regarding the coexistence of MPN and LPN. This review focuses on the role of JAK2 and the JAK/STAT pathway in MPN and LPN, whether there is a role for the genetic background in the occurrence of both MPN and LPN and whether there is a role for cytoreductive drugs in the occurrence of both MPN and LPN. Furthermore, whether an increased risk of lymphoma development is limited to patients who receive the JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib, is a more general phenomenon that occurs following JAK1/2 inhibition or is associated with preferential JAK1 or JAK2 targeting is discussed

Diagnosis and management of prefibrotic myelofibrosis.

The 2016 WHO classification comprises two stages of primary myelofibrosis (PMF): early/prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis (pre-PMF) and overt fibrotic PMF (overt PMF). Diagnostic criteria rely on bone marrow morphology, fibrosis grade (0-1 in pre-PMF, 2-3 in overt PMF), and clinical features (leukoerythroblastosis, anemia, leucocytosis, increased lactate dehydrogenase, and palpable splenomegaly). An accurate differentiation from essential thrombocythemia (ET) is pivotal because the two entities show different clinical presentation and outcome, in terms of survival, leukemic evolution, and rates of progression to overt myelofibrosis. Areas covered: The current review provides an overview on how to diagnose and stratify patients with pre-PMF, taking into account their definite and peculiar risk of vascular event, which is often neglected, and their milder disease course, compared with overt PMF, with the aim of improving and individualizing their counseling and management. Expert commentary: Pre-PMF is a new entity characterized by a unique combination of both a thrombo-hemorrhagic risk (that brings it closer to PV and ET) and a definite risk of disease evolution (that places pre-PMF somewhat closer to the overt PMF variant)

Acquired von Willebrand syndrome in myeloproliferative neoplasms with extreme thrombocytosis

Acquired von Willebrand syndrome in myeloproliferative neoplasms with extreme thrombocytosi

Clinical course and outcome of essential thrombocythemia and prefibrotic myelofibrosis according to the revised WHO 2016 diagnostic criteria.

The recently revised World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myeloid neoplasms recognizes prefibrotic myelofibrosis (prePMF) as a distinct entity, characterized by well-defined histopathologic features together with minor clinical criteria (leukocytes, anemia, increased LDH, splenomegaly). The aim of the study was to examine the clinical relevance of distinguishing prePMF from essential thrombocythemia (ET). We identified in our database all patients affected with ET, prePMF and primary myelofibrosis (PMF) diagnosed according to 2008 WHO criteria with a bone marrow fibrosis grade 0-1 at diagnosis and one DNA sample to define the mutational status. The bone marrow morphology of all 404 identified patients was reviewed by an expert pathologist and patients were reclassified according to the 2016 WHO criteria. After reclassification, our cohort included 269 ET, 109 prePMF, and 26 myeloproliferative neoplasm unclassificable. In comparison with ET, patients with prePMF had higher leukocyte count, lower hemoglobin level, higher platelet count, higher LDH values, and higher number of circulating CD34-positive cells; they showed more frequently splenomegaly (all P values < ·001). CALR mutations were more frequent in prePMF than in ET (35·8% vs 17·8%, P < ·001). PrePMF patients had shorter overall survival (P < ·001) and a trend to a higher incidence of leukemic evolution (P ·067) compared to ET patients, while they did not differ in terms of thrombotic and bleeding complications. In conclusion, ET and prePMF diagnosed according to 2016 WHO criteria are two entities with a different clinical phenotype at diagnosis and a different clinical outcome