Prognostic value of blasts in peripheral blood in myelofibrosis in the ruxolitinib era

Oral Decitabine/Cedazuridine Is an Effective Ambulatory Therapy for Patients With Myelofibrosis Refractory to JAK2 Inhibitor Therapy

BACKGROUND

Outcomes are dismal for patients with myelofibrosis (MF) who are no longer responsive to JAK2 inhibitors (JAKi) and/or have increasing blast cell numbers. Although prior reports have suggested the benefits of intravenous decitabine (DAC) combined with ruxolitinib for patients with Myeloproliferative Neoplasm (MPN) accelerated/blast phase (AP/BP), decitabine-cedazuridine (DEC-C), an oral fixed-dose combination providing equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure, has not been evaluated in MF.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 14 patients with high-risk MF refractory to ruxolitinib or MPN-AP (10-19% blasts) treated with DEC-C +/- JAKi at Mount Sinai Hospital from 2021 to 2024.

RESULTS

The cohort was elderly (median age,76 years) and almost uniformly possessed high risk mutations with 13 of the 14 patients progressing on JAKi therapy. With a median follow-up of 9.4 months, the median overall survival (OS) was 29 months for the entire cohort. Median OS was 10.8 months for MPN-AP and was not reached for ruxolitinib refractory MF patients. All patients (n = 9) receiving > 4 cycles of DEC-C had clinical benefit exemplified by a reduction in blast cell numbers, spleen size, and lack of progression to MPN-BP (78%). Furthermore, 3/14 patients proceeded to allogeneic stem cell transplant. Myelosuppression was a common adverse event which was managed by reducing the number of days of administration of DEC-C from 5 to 3 per cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

This report demonstrates the feasibility, tolerability, and clinical benefit of an exclusively ambulatory regimen for high-risk, elderly patients with advanced MF which warrants further evaluation in a prospective clinical trial.

Myelofibrosis and allogeneic transplantation: critical points and challenges

New available drugs allow better control of systemic symptoms associated with myelofibrosis (MF) and splenomegaly but they do not modify the natural history of progressive and poor prognosis disease. Thus, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is still considered the only available curative treatment for patients with MF. Despite the increasing number of procedures worldwide in recent years, HSCT for MF patients remains challenging. An increasingly complex network of the patient, disease, and transplant-related factors should be considered to understand the need for and the benefits of the procedure. Unfortunately, prospective trials are often lacking in this setting, making an evidence-based decision process particularly arduous. In the present review, we will analyze the main controversial points of allogeneic transplantation in MF, that is, the development of more sophisticated models for the identification of eligible patients; the need for tools offering a more precise definition of expected outcomes combining comorbidity assessment and factors related to the procedure; the decision-making process about the best transplantation time; the evaluation of the most appropriate platform for curative treatment; the impact of splenomegaly; and splenectomy on outcomes.

Indication and management of allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in myelofibrosis: updated recommendations by the EBMT/ELN International Working Group

New options for medical therapy and risk scoring systems containing molecular data are leading to increased complexity in the management of patients with myelofibrosis. To inform patients' optimal care, we updated the 2015 guidelines on indications for and management of allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) with the support of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and European LeukemiaNet (ELN). New recommendations were produced using a consensus-building methodology after a comprehensive review of articles released from January, 2015 to December, 2022. Seven domains and 18 key questions were selected through a series of questionnaires using a Delphi process. Key recommendations in this update include: patients with primary myelofibrosis and an intermediate-2 or high-risk Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System score, or a high-risk Mutation-Enhanced International Prognostic Score Systems (MIPSS70 or MIPSS70-plus) score, or a low-risk or intermediate-risk Myelofibrosis Transplant Scoring System score should be considered candidates for allogeneic HSCT. All patients who are candidates for allogeneic HSCT with splenomegaly greater than 5 cm below the left costal margin or splenomegaly-related symptoms should receive a spleen-directed treatment, ideally with a JAK-inhibitor; HLA-matched sibling donors remain the preferred donor source to date. Reduced intensity conditioning and myeloablative conditioning are both valid options for patients with myelofibrosis. Regular post-transplantation driver mutation monitoring is recommended to detect and treat early relapse with donor lymphocyte infusion. In a disease where evidence-based guidance is scarce, these recommendations might help clinicians and patients in shared decision making.

Updates on accelerated and blast phase myeloproliferative neoplasms: Are we making progress?

Management approaches for accelerated and blast phase myeloproliferative neoplasms remain challenging for clinicians and patients alike. Despite many therapeutic advances, outcomes for those patients who are not allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplant eligible remain, in general, very poor. Estimated survival rates for such blast phase patients is frequently reported as less than 6 months. No specific immunological, genomic or clinicopathological signature currently exists that accurately predicts the risk and timing of transformation, which frequently induces a high degree of anxiety among patients and clinicians alike. Within this review article, we provide an up-to-date summary of current understanding of the underlying pathogenesis of accelerated and blast phase disease and discuss current therapeutic approaches and realistic outcomes. Finally, we discuss how the horizon may look with the introduction of more novel agents into the clinical arena.

Relevant Clinical Factors in Patients with Myelofibrosis on Ruxolitinib for 5 or More Years

INTRODUCTION

Median duration of therapy with the first JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib (RUX) approved for patients with intermediate or high-risk myelofibrosis (MF) is about 3 years.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we aimed to evaluate clinical features, predictive factors, and outcome of patients presenting to our institution who were able to remain on RUX for ≥5 years (RUX ≥5y, n = 73).

RESULTS

Comparing baseline demographics of patients who remained on RUX ≥5y (n = 73) with patients who were on RUX for 6 months to 3 years (n = 203), we confirmed that patients on RUX ≥5y lacked advanced clinical features at the start of therapy, such as anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, higher blasts or monocytes. Predictive independent factors for staying on RUX ≥5y were hemoglobin >10 g/dL, circulating blasts <1%, platelets >150 × 109/L, neutrophils >70%, and having primary MF. Age over 65 years remained significant for outcome in patients on RUX ≥5y.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study, we report on the relevance of absence of advanced clinical features for long RUX therapy and confirm the role of age on outcome despite therapy.

High molecular risk variants, severe thrombocytopenia and large unstained cells count affect the outcome in primary myelofibrosis

Apart from the driver mutations, high molecular risk (HMR) variants and other factors have been reported to influence the prognosis of primary myelofibrosis (PMF). The aim of our study was to investigate the impact of laboratory and molecular characteristics at the time of diagnosis (TOD) on the PMF outcome. The study group consisted of 82 patients recruited from three Polish university centers. Among the driver mutations, only CALR type 1 positively influenced the overall survival (OS). The risk of progression to accelerated or blastic disease phase (AP/BP) did not depend on the driver mutation type, but was closely associated with the presence of HMR variants (p = 0.0062). The risk of death (ROD) was higher in patients with HMR variants (OR[95%CI] = 4.33[1.52;12.34], p = 0.0044) and in patients with a platelet count at the TOD between 50-100 G/L (HR[95%CI] = 2.66[1.11;6.35]) and < 50 G/L (HR[95%CI] = 8.44[2.50;28.44]). Median survival time was 7.8, 2.2 and 1.4 years in patients with large unstained cells (LUC) count of [0.0-0.2], (0.2-0.4] and > 0.4 G/L at the TOD, respectively. We found an unexpected, hitherto undescribed, association between LUC count at the TOD and PMF prognosis. Our analysis led to the following conclusions: in PMF patients at the TOD 1) the presence of HMR variants, especially combined, is associated with an increased risk of progression to the AP and BP, and shorter OS, 2) severe thrombocytopenia confers worse prognosis than the moderate one, 3) LUC count is closely related with the disease phase, and associated with the ROD and OS.

Association of Myelofibrosis Phenotypes with Clinical Manifestations, Molecular Profiles, and Treatments

Myelofibrosis (MF) presents an array of clinical manifestations and molecular profiles. The two distinct phenotypes- myeloproliferative and myelodepletive or cytopenic- are situated at the two poles of the disease spectrum and are largely defined by different degrees of cytopenias, splenomegaly, and distinct molecular profiles. The myeloproliferative phenotype is characterized by normal/higher peripheral blood counts or mildly decreased hemoglobin, progressive splenomegaly, and constitutional symptoms. The myeloproliferative phenotype is typically associated with secondary MF, higher JAK2 V617F burden, fewer mutations, and superior overall survival (OS). The myelodepletive phenotype is usually associated with primary MF, ≥2 cytopenias, modest splenomegaly, lower JAK2 V617F burden, higher fibrosis, greater genomic complexity, and inferior OS. Cytopenias are associated with mutations in epigenetic regulators/splicing factors, clonal evolution, disease progression, and shorter OS. Clinical variables, in conjunction with the molecular profiles, inform integrated prognostication and disease management. Ruxolitinib/fedratinib and pacritinib/momelotinib may be more suitable to treat patients with the myeloproliferative and myelodepletive phenotypes, respectively. Appreciation of MF heterogeneity and two distinct phenotypes, the different clinical manifestations and molecular profiles associated with each phenotype alongside the growing treatment expertise, the development of non-myelosuppressive JAK inhibitors, and integrated prognostication are leading to a new era in patient management. Physicians can increasingly tailor personalized treatments that will address the unique unmet needs of MF patients, including those presenting with the myelodepletive phenotype, to elicit optimal outcomes and extended OS across the disease spectrum.

Myelofibrosis

The clinical phenotype of primary and post-polycythemia vera and postessential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis (MF) is dominated by splenomegaly, symptomatology, a variety of blood cell alterations, and a tendency to develop vascular complications and blast phase. Diagnosis requires assessing complete cell blood counts, bone marrow morphology, deep genetic evaluations, and disease history. Driver molecular events consist of JAK2V617F, CALR, and MPL mutations, whereas about 8% to 10% of MF are "triple-negative." Additional myeloid-gene variants are described in roughly 80% of patients. Currently available clinical-based and integrated clinical/molecular-based scoring systems predict the survival of patients with MF and are applied for conventional treatment decision-making, indication to stem cell transplant (SCT) and allocation in clinical trials. Standard treatment consists of anemia-oriented therapies, hydroxyurea, and JAK inhibitors such as ruxolitinib, fedratinib, and pacritinib. Overall, spleen volume reduction of 35% or greater at week 24 can be achieved by 42% of ruxolitinib-, 47% of fedratinib-, 19% of pacritinib-, and 27% of momelotinib-treated patients. Now, it is time to move towards new paradigms for evaluating efficacy like disease modification, that we intend as a robust and unequivocal effect on disease biology and/or on patient survival. The growing number of clinical trials potentially pave the way for new strategies in patients with MF. Translational studies of some molecules showed an early effect on bone marrow fibrosis and on variant allele frequencies of myeloid genes. SCT is still the only curative option, however, it is associated with relevant challenges. This review focuses on the diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment of MF.

Trend of circulating CD34+ cells in patients with myelofibrosis: Association with spleen response during ruxolitinib treatment

We evaluated CD34⁺ cells in a single-centre series of 49 consecutive patients with myelofibrosis (MF) at baseline and during ruxolitinib therapy and examined any association with spleen response. The median (range) absolute number of circulating CD34⁺ cells was 0.0835 (0.001-1.528) × 10⁹ /L at diagnosis, and 0.123 (0.002-1.528) × 10⁹ /L at ruxolitinib start. With the exception of a transient increase after 3 months of ruxolitinib therapy, a progressive reduction in CD34⁺ cells count was documented, down to a minimum of 0.063 × 10⁹ /L after 36 months. We then assessed the association between spleen diameter expressed as the distance from the left costal margin (outcome) and log(CD34⁺ ) cells count using random-intercept and random slope multivariable regression models to take into account within subject correlation: after adjusting for time and ruxolitinib dosage, we estimated a 0.7 cm increase (95% confidence interval 0.2-1.2, p = 0.003) in spleen length for each unit increase in log(CD34⁺ ) cells count (× 10⁹ /L). Although our study has some limitations, mainly related to its retrospective design, our approach may introduce a reproducible and simple tool that could facilitate the assessment of spleen response more objectively in patients with MF treated with ruxolitinib.

SOHO State of the Art Updates and Next Questions | Accelerated Phase of MPN: What It Is and What to Do About It

Progression of Philadelphia-chromosome negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) to the accelerated phase (AP) or blast phase (BP) is associated with poor outcomes. As our understanding of the molecular drivers of MPN progression has grown, there has been increasing investigation into the use of novel targeted approaches in the treatment of these diseases. In this review we summarize the clinical and molecular risk factors for progression to MPN-AP/BP followed by discussion of treatment approach. We also highlight outcomes using conventional approaches such as intensive chemotherapy and hypomethylating agents along with considerations around allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. We then focus on novel targeted approaches in MPN-AP/BP including venetoclax-based regimens, IDH inhibition, and ongoing prospective clinical trials.

Combination of ruxolitinib with ABT-737 exhibits synergistic effects in cells carrying concurrent JAK2V617F and ASXL1 mutations

The V617F mutation in Janus kinase 2 is considered one of the driver mutations leading to Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). Concurrent JAK2V617F and ASXL1 mutations accelerate the progression of myelofibrosis in patients with MPNs. Few therapies are currently available for patients with these two mutations. In our study, the combination of ruxolitinib with ABT-737 was evaluated in cells carrying JAK2V617F and ASXL1 double mutations. RNA sequencing indicated overactivated oxidative phosphorylation in JAK2V617F;Asxl1+/- cKit+ cells. The cell line model with JAK2V617F and ASXL1 double mutations (HEL-AKO cells) also exhibited dysregulated mitochondrial function with an increase in the reactive oxygen species levels and a decrease in the ATP levels. The colony growth inhibition rates of cells with JAK2V617F and ASXL1 double mutations were significantly lower than those of cells with only the JAK2V617F mutation. Combined treatment with ruxolitinib and ABT-737 promoted apoptosis and inhibited the proliferation of HEL-AKO cells. Cotreatment with the two drugs also inhibited the growth of bone marrow mononuclear cells isolated from patients with concurrent JAK2V617F and ASXL1 mutations. In conclusion, we provide preclinical evidence showing that the combination of ruxolitinib and ABT-737 is a promising therapeutic strategy for MPN patients with concurrent JAK2V617F and ASXL1 mutations.

Myeloproliferative Neoplasms, Version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

The classic Philadelphia chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) consist of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and essential thrombocythemia and are a heterogeneous group of clonal blood disorders characterized by an overproduction of blood cells. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for MPN were developed as a result of meetings convened by a multidisciplinary panel with expertise in MPN, with the goal of providing recommendations for the management of MPN in adults. The Guidelines include recommendations for the diagnostic workup, risk stratification, treatment, and supportive care strategies for the management of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and essential thrombocythemia. Assessment of symptoms at baseline and monitoring of symptom status during the course of treatment is recommended for all patients. This article focuses on the recommendations as outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the diagnosis of MPN and the risk stratification, management, and supportive care relevant to MF.

Mutational landscape of blast phase myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN-BP) and antecedent MPN

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) have an inherent tendency to evolve to the blast phase (BP), characterized by ≥20% myeloblasts in the blood or bone marrow. MPN-BP portends a dismal prognosis and currently, effective treatment modalities are scarce, except for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) in selected patients, particularly those who achieve complete/partial remission. The mutational landscape of MPN-BP differs from de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in several key aspects, such as significantly lower frequencies of FLT3 and DNMT3A mutations, and higher incidence of IDH1/2 and TP53 in MPN-BP. Herein, we comprehensively review the impact of the three signaling driver mutations (JAK2 V617F, CALR exon 9 indels, MPL W515K/L) that constitutively activate the JAK/STAT pathway, and of the other somatic non-driver mutations (epigenetic, mRNA splicing, transcriptional regulators, and mutations in signal transduction genes) that cooperatively or independently promote MPN progression and leukemic transformation. The MPN subtype, harboring two or more high-molecular risk (HMR) mutations (epigenetic regulators and mRNA splicing factors) and "triple-negative" PMF are among the critical factors that increase risk of leukemic transformation and shorten survival. Primary myelofibrosis (PMF) is the most aggressive MPN; and polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) are relatively indolent subtypes. In PV and ET, mutations in splicing factor genes are associated with progression to myelofibrosis (MF), and in ET, TP53 mutations predict risk for leukemic transformation. The advent of targeted next-generation sequencing and improved prognostic scoring systems for PMF inform decisions regarding allo-HSCT. The emergence of treatments targeting mutant enzymes (e.g., IDH1/2 inhibitors) or epigenetic pathways (BET and LSD1 inhibitors) along with new insights into the mechanisms of leukemogenesis will hopefully lead the way to superior management strategies and outcomes of MPN-BP patients.

SOHO State of the Art Updates and Next Questions: Novel Therapies in Development for Myelofibrosis

Myeloproliferative neoplasms research has entered a dynamic and exciting era as we witness exponential growth of novel agents in advanced/early phase clinical trials for myelofibrosis (MF). Building on the success and pivotal role of ruxolitinib, many novel agents, spanning a wide range of mechanisms/targets (epigenetic regulation, apoptotic/intracellular signaling pathways, telomerase, bone marrow fibrosis) are in clinical development; several are studied in registrational trials and hold great potential to expand the therapeutic arsenal/shift the treatment paradigm if regulatory approval is granted. Insight into MF pathogenesis and its molecular underpinnings, preclinical studies demonstrating synergism of ruxolitinib with investigational agents, urgent unmet clinical needs (cytopenias, loss of response to JAK inhibitors); and progressive disease fueled the rapid rise of innovative therapeutics. New strategies include pairing ruxolitinib with erythroid maturation agents to manage anemia (luspatercept), designing rational combinations with ruxolitinib to boost responses in both the frontline and suboptimal response settings (pelabresib, navitoclax, parsaclisib), treatment with non-JAK inhibitor monotherapy in the second-line setting (navtemadlin, imetelstat), novel JAK inhibitors tailored to subgroups with challenging unmet needs (momelotinib and pacritinib for anemia and thrombocytopenia, respectively); and agents potentially enhancing longevity (imetelstat). Beyond typical endpoints evaluated in MF clinical trials (spleen volume reduction ≥ 35%, total symptom score reduction ≥ 50%) thus far, emerging endpoints include overall survival, progression-free survival, transfusion independence, anemia benefits, bone marrow fibrosis and driver mutation allele burden reduction. Novel biomarkers and additional clinical features are being sought to assess new agents and tailor emerging therapies to appropriate patients. New strategies are needed to optimize the design of clinical trials comparing novel combinations to standard agent monotherapy.

Peripheral blasts are associated with responses to ruxolitinib and outcomes in patients with chronic-phase myelofibrosis

Background

The presence of peripheral blasts (PB) is a negative prognostic factor in patients with primary and secondary myelofibrosis (MF) and PB ≥4% was associated with a particularly unfavorable prognosis. Ruxolitinib (RUX) is the JAK1/2 inhibitor most used for treatment of MF‐related splenomegaly and symptoms. Its role has not been assessed in correlation with PB.

Methods

In 794 chronic‐phase MF patients treated with RUX, we evaluated the impact of baseline percentage of PB on response (spleen and symptoms responses) and outcome (RUX discontinuation‐free, leukemia‐free, and overall survival). Three subgroups were compared: PB‐0 (no PB, 61.3%), PB‐4 (PB 1%‐4%, 33.5%), and PB‐9 (PB 5%‐9%, 5.2%).

Results

At 3 and 6 months, spleen responses were less frequently achieved by PB‐4 (P = .001) and PB‐9 (P = .004) compared to PB‐0 patients. RUX discontinuation‐free, leukemia‐free, and overall survival were also worse for PB‐4 and PB‐9 patients (P = .001, P = .002, and P < .001, respectively).

Conclusions

Personalized approaches beyond RUX monotherapy may be useful in PB‐4 and particularly in PB‐9 patients.

In 794 chronic‐phase myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib, the impact of the baseline percentage of peripheral blasts (PB) on response and outcome was evaluated. Three subgroups were compared: PB‐0 (no PB, 61.3%), PB‐4 (PB 1%‐4%, 33.5%), and PB‐9 (PB 5%‐9%, 5.2%). At 3 and 6 months, spleen responses were less frequently achieved by PB‐4 (P = .001) and PB‐9 (P = .004) compared to PB‐0 patients; ruxolitinib discontinuation‐free, leukemia‐free, and overall survival were also worse for PB‐4 and PB‐9 patients (P = .001, P = .002, and P < .001, respectively).

Reduced intensity hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for myelofibrosis in accelerated-phase

Results of this first report in accelerated-phase myelofibrosis may encourage clinicians to refer these patients for curative treatment.

Accelerated-phase myelofibrosis without prior cytoreduction showed excellent 5-year survival (65%) but higher relapse vs chronic phase.

Accelerated-phase myelofibrosis, currently defined by circulating blasts 10% to 19%, usually confers very high risk for progression and poor outcome. The outcome of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for accelerated-phase myelofibrosis has not been evaluated yet. We analyzed the outcome of 349 clinically and genetically annotated patients with primary or secondary myelofibrosis undergoing reduced intensity transplantation, of whom 35 had accelerated-phase myelofibrosis. In comparison with chronic-phase (<10% blasts) myelofibrosis, median leukocyte counts were higher, more patients had constitutional symptoms, and RAS mutations were detected more frequently in the accelerated-phase group. After a median follow-up of 5.9 years, estimated 5-year overall survival was 65% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49% to 81%) vs 64% (95% CI, 59% to 69%) for the chronic-phase group (P = .91), and median overall survival was not reached. In terms of relapse-free survival, estimated 5-year outcome for the accelerated-phase group was 49% (95% CI, 32% to 67%) vs 55% (95% CI, 50% to 61%) for the chronic-phase group (P = .65). Estimated 5-year nonrelapse mortality was 20% (95% CI, 8% to 33%) for the accelerated-phase group vs 30% (95% CI, 24% to 35%; P = .25) for the chronic-phase group. In terms of relapse, 5-year incidence was 30% (95% CI, 14% to 46%) for the accelerated-phase group vs 15% (95% CI, 11% to 19%) for the chronic-phase group (P = .02). Results were confirmed in multivariable analysis and propensity score matching. In conclusion, reduced intensity transplantation showed excellent survival but higher relapse for accelerated-phase myelofibrosis.

Progression in Ph-Chromosome-Negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: An Overview on Pathologic Issues and Molecular Determinants

Progression in Ph-chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) develops with variable incidence and time sequence in essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera, and primary myelofibrosis. These diseases show different clinic-pathologic features and outcomes despite sharing deregulated JAK/STAT signaling due to mutations in either the Janus kinase 2 or myeloproliferative leukemia or CALReticulin genes, which are the primary drivers of the diseases, as well as defined diagnostic criteria and biomarkers in most cases. Progression is defined by the development or worsening of marrow fibrosis or the progressive increase in the marrow blast percentage. Progression is often related to additional genetic aberrations, although some can already be detected during the chronic phase. Detailed scoring systems for clinical usage that are mostly applied in patients with primary myelofibrosis have been defined, and the most recent ones include cytogenetic and molecular parameters with prognostic significance. Additional different clinic-pathologic changes have been reported that may occur during the course of the disease and that are, at present, classified as WHO-defined types of progression, although they likely represent such an event. The present review is meant to provide an updated overview on progression in Ph-chromosome-negative MPN, with a major focus on the pathologic side.

Progression in Ph-Chromosome-Negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: An Overview on Pathologic Issues and Molecular Determinants

Progression in Ph-chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) develops with variable incidence and time sequence in essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera, and primary myelofibrosis. These diseases show different clinic-pathologic features and outcomes despite sharing deregulated JAK/STAT signaling due to mutations in either the Janus kinase 2 or myeloproliferative leukemia or CALReticulin genes, which are the primary drivers of the diseases, as well as defined diagnostic criteria and biomarkers in most cases. Progression is defined by the development or worsening of marrow fibrosis or the progressive increase in the marrow blast percentage. Progression is often related to additional genetic aberrations, although some can already be detected during the chronic phase. Detailed scoring systems for clinical usage that are mostly applied in patients with primary myelofibrosis have been defined, and the most recent ones include cytogenetic and molecular parameters with prognostic significance. Additional different clinic-pathologic changes have been reported that may occur during the course of the disease and that are, at present, classified as WHO-defined types of progression, although they likely represent such an event. The present review is meant to provide an updated overview on progression in Ph-chromosome-negative MPN, with a major focus on the pathologic side.

Phase 2 study of ruxolitinib and decitabine in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasm in accelerated and blast phase

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) that have evolved into accelerated or blast phase disease (MPN-AP/BP) have poor outcomes with limited treatment options and therefore represent an urgent unmet need. We have previously demonstrated in a multicenter, phase 1 trial conducted through the Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research Consortium that the combination of ruxolitinib and decitabine is safe and tolerable and is associated with a favorable overall survival (OS). In this phase 2 trial, 25 patients with MPN-AP/BP were treated at the recommended phase 2 dose of ruxolitinib 25 mg twice daily for the induction cycle followed by 10 mg twice daily for subsequent cycles in combination with decitabine 20 mg/m2 for 5 consecutive days in a 28-day cycle. Nineteen patients died during the study follow-up. The median OS for all patients on study was 9.5 months (95% confidence interval, 4.3-12.0). Overall response rate (complete remission + incomplete platelet recovery + partial remission) was 11/25 (44%) and response was not associated with improved survival. We conclude that the combination of decitabine and ruxolitinib was well tolerated, demonstrated favorable OS, and represents a therapeutic option for this high-risk patient population. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02076191.

Accelerated Phase of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) can transform into blast phase MPN (leukemic transformation; MPN-BP), typically via accelerated phase MPN (MPN-AP), in ∼20-25% of the cases. MPN-AP and MPN-BP are characterized by 10-19% and ≥20% blasts, respectively. MPN-AP/BP portend a dismal prognosis with no established conventional treatment. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is the sole modality associated with long-term survival.

SUMMARY

MPN-AP/BP has a markedly different mutational profile from de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In MPN-AP/BP, TP53 and IDH1/2 are more frequent, whereas FLT3 and DNMT3A are rare. Higher incidence of leukemic transformation has been associated with the most aggressive MPN subtype, myelofibrosis (MF); other risk factors for leukemic transformation include rising blast counts above 3-5%, advanced age, severe anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukocytosis, increasing bone marrow fibrosis, type 1 CALR-unmutated status, lack of driver mutations (negative for JAK2, CALR, or MPL genes), adverse cytogenetics, and acquisition of ≥2 high-molecular risk mutations (ASXL1, EZH2, IDH1/2, SRSF2, and U2AF1Q157). The aforementioned factors have been incorporated in several novel prognostic scoring systems for MF. Currently, elderly/unfit patients with MPN-AP/BP are treated with hypomethylating agents with/without ruxolitinib; these regimens appear to confer comparable benefit to intensive chemotherapy but with lower toxicity. Retrospective studies in patients who acquired actionable mutations during MPN-AP/BP showed positive outcomes with targeted AML treatments, such as IDH1/2 inhibitors, and require further evaluation in clinical trials. Key Messages: Therapy for MPN-AP patients represents an unmet medical need. MF patients, in particular, should be appropriately stratified regarding their prognosis and the risk for transformation. Higher-risk patients should be monitored regularly and treated prior to progression to MPN-BP. MPN-AP patients may be treated with hypomethylating agents alone or in combination with ruxolitinib; also, patients can be provided with the option to enroll in rationally designed clinical trials exploring combination regimens, including novel targeted drugs, with an ultimate goal to transition to transplant.