Prognostic risk models for transplant decision-making in myelofibrosis

Essential Thrombocythemia and Post-Essential Thrombocythemia Myelofibrosis: Updates on Diagnosis, Clinical Aspects, and Management

Although several decades have passed since the description of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), many aspects of their pathophysiology have not been elucidated. In this review, we discuss the mutational landscape of patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET), prognostic scores and salient pathology, and clinical points. We discuss also the diagnostic challenges of differentiating ET from prefibrotic MF. We then focus on post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis (post-ET MF), a rare subset of MPN that is usually studied in conjunction with post-polycythemia vera MF. The transition of ET to post-ET MF is not well studied on a molecular level, and we present available data. Patients with secondary MF could benefit from allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and we present available data focusing on post-ET MF.

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.

Developing strategies to reduce the duration of therapy for patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms

INTRODUCTION

All current treatment strategies for myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) patients with the exception of allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) are continuously administered. Treatment approaches that reduce the degree of minimal residual disease (MRD) might permit possible drug holidays or potential cures.

AREA COVERED

Authors discuss the presently available agents and those that are under clinical development that might induce a state of MRD and can be administered intermittently. Data extracted from a comprehensive search of peer review literature performed in Pubmed as well as information presented in scientific meetings.

EXPERT OPINION

Currently, the only potential curative treatment for MPN is ASCT. ASCT requires a period of intense treatment but ultimately allows the patient to enjoy a period independent of continued treatment. There is evidence that intermittent use of busulfan or prolonged use of IFN-α can induce hematological remissions that are sustained for prolonged periods of time, allowing for drug holidays. The experimental drug Imetelstat is a promising drug that has been reported to prolong survival in very high-risk myelofibrosis patients after a limited period of time of administration. New experimental drugs and drug combinations that target the malignant clone and/or microenvironmental abnormalities have the potential to eliminate MRD, which might allow for drug holidays and reduction in the duration of therapy.

Mutations associated with age-related clonal hematopoiesis in PMF patients with rapid progression to myelofibrosis

Besides histopathological findings there are no indicators of increased risk for fibrotic progression in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). Age-related clonal hematopoiesis (ARCH/CHIP) is a frequent finding in the elderly and combinations with MPN driver mutations (JAK2, MPL, and CALR) have been described. To determine the impact of ARCH/CHIP-related mutations for development of fibrosis in primary myelofibrosis (PMF), the mutational status of cases with fibrotic progression from grade 0 to grade 2/3 (n = 77) as evidenced by follow-up bone marrow biopsies (median 6.2 years) was compared with prefibrotic PMF samples without development of fibrosis (n = 27; median follow-up 7.3 years). Frequent ARCH/CHIP-associated mutations (TET2, ASXL1, and DNMT3A) demonstrable at presentation were not connected with fibrotic progression. However, mutations which are rarely found in ARCH/CHIP (SRSF2, U2AF1, SF3B1, IDH1/2, and EZH2) were present in 24.7% of cases with later development of fibrosis and not detectable in cases staying free from fibrosis (P = 0.0028). Determination of the tumor mutational burden (TMB) in a subgroup of cases (n = 32) did not show significant differences (7.68 mutations/MB vs. 6.85 mutations/MB). We conclude that mutations rarely found in ARCH/CHIP provide an independent risk factor for rapid fibrotic progression (median 2.0 years) when manifest already at first presentation.

Genetically inspired prognostic scoring system (GIPSS) outperforms dynamic international prognostic scoring system (DIPSS) in myelofibrosis patients

A genetically inspired prognostic scoring system (GIPSS) that stratifies primary myelofibrosis (PMF) patients by genetic variants alone was recently proposed. While non-inferior to the dynamic international prognostic scoring system (DIPSS), the lack of overlapping prognostic variables between the models leads to increased risk for disagreement between two valid prognostic models and presents a challenging clinical situation. In an external cohort of 266 molecularly annotated myelofibrosis (MF) patients, we demonstrated that the GIPSS model significantly differentiated between four risk groups (low, int-1, int-2, high) with median OS that was not reached, not reached, 60.5 and 28.9 months, respectively. High-risk patients had significantly inferior leukemia-free survival (LFS) (P < 0.0001). We identified a cohort of prognostically ambiguous patients (n = 39) in which GIPSS and DIPSS models differed by ≥2 risk groups. Among these patients, a similar proportion were up-staged by DIPSS (n = 19) and GIPSS (n = 20). Patients upstaged by GIPSS (genetically high-risk) had a trend toward inferior OS compared with patients upstaged by DIPSS (clinically high-risk) (P = .08) and significantly worse LFS (P = .04). Patients deemed intermediate-2 and high-risk by GIPSS who underwent allogeneic transplant had improved OS compared with those that did not (P = .04). GIPSS is a valid disease-specific prognostic system and outperforms DIPSS in patients where the two models disagree. Additionally, while GIPSS was developed for PMF; the current study shows, however, that the contemporary genetic model performs equally well for both primary and secondary myelofibrosis.