Comparison of Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System and MYelofibrosis SECondary to PV and ET Prognostic Model for Prediction of Outcome in Polycythemia Vera and Essential Thrombocythemia Myelofibrosis after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation

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.

Are transplant indications changing for myelofibrosis?

Myelofibrosis is a devastating myeloid malignancy characterized by dysregulation of the JAK-STAT pathway, resulting in splenomegaly, constitutional symptoms, anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukocytosis, and an increased likelihood of progression to acute leukemia. The only curative option is allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The numbers of transplants have been increasing every year, and although there have been improvements in survival, there remain many unanswered questions. In this review, we will evaluate patient selection and appropriate timing for transplantation. We will cover the current prognostic scoring systems, which can aid in the decision of when to move forward with transplant. We will also review the different donor options, as well as the conditioning regimens. The peritransplant management of splenomegaly will be reviewed. We will discuss management of posttransplant complications such as loss of donor chimerism or disease relapse. Finally, we will review what is known about the outlook of patients who have undergone allogeneic stem cell transplant with regards to quality of life and long-term survival.

How I treat transplant-eligible patients with myelofibrosis

Despite the approval of Janus kinase inhibitors and novel agents for patients with myelofibrosis (MF), disease-modifying responses remain limited, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) remains the only potentially curative treatment option. The number of HSCTs for MF continues to increase worldwide, but its inherent therapy-related morbidity and mortality limit its use for many patients. Furthermore, patients with MF often present at an older age, with cytopenia, splenomegaly, and severe bone marrow fibrosis, posing challenges in managing them throughout the HSCT procedure. Although implementation of molecular analyses enabled improved understanding of disease mechanisms and subsequently sparked development of novel drugs with promising activity, prospective trials in the HSCT setting are often lacking, making an evidence-based decision process particularly difficult. To illustrate how we approach patients with MF with respect to HSCT, we present 3 different clinical scenarios to capture relevant aspects that influence our decision making regarding indication for, or against, HSCT. We describe how we perform HSCT according to different risk categories and, furthermore, discuss our up-to-date approach to reduce transplant-related complications. Last, we show how to harness graft-versus-MF effects, particularly in the posttransplant period to achieve the best possible outcomes for patients.

Donor Lymphocyte Infusion and Molecular Monitoring for Relapsed Myelofibrosis After Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is a curative approach for myelofibrosis patients, but relapse is a major cause of treatment failure. We investigated the effect of donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) in 37 patients with molecular (n = 17) or hematological relapse (n = 20) after HCT. Patients received median of 2 (range, 1-5) cumulative DLI (total of 91 infusions). Median starting dose was 1 × 10⁶ cells/kg, escalated by half-log ≥6 weeks if no response nor graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) occurred. Median time to first DLI was 40 weeks for molecular relapse versus 145 weeks for hematological relapse. Overall molecular complete response (mCR) at any time was 73% (n = 27) and was significantly higher for initial molecular relapse (88%) versus hematological relapse (60%; P = 0.05). The 6-year overall survival was 77% versus 32% (P = 0.03). Acute GvHD 2-4 occurred in 22% and half of the patients achieved mCR without any GvHD. All patients who relapsed from mCR achieved after first DLI could be salvaged with subsequent DLI, showing long-term survival. No second HCT was needed for molecular relapse versus 6 for hematological relapse. This comprehensive and largest study to date suggests molecular monitoring together with DLI as standard of care and a crucial approach to achieve excellent outcomes in relapsed 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.

High Molecular and Cytogenetic Risk in Myelofibrosis Does Not Benefit From Higher Intensity Conditioning Before Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: An International Collaborative Analysis

There is no direct evidence to recommend specific conditioning intensities in myelofibrosis undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation, especially in the molecular era. We aimed to compare outcomes of reduced intensity (RIC) or myeloablative conditioning (MAC) transplantation in myelofibrosis with molecular information. The study included 645 genetically annotated patients (with at least driver mutation status available), of whom 414 received RIC and 231 patients received MAC. The median follow-up time from transplantation was 6.0 years for RIC and 9.4 years for MAC. The 6-year overall survival rates for RIC and MAC were 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58%-68%) and 59% (95% CI, 52%-66%; P = 0.34) and progression-free survival was 52% (95% CI, 47%-57%) and 52% (95% CI, 45%-59%; P = 0.64). The 2-year cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality was 26% (95% CI, 21%-31%) for RIC and 29% (95% CI, 23%-34%) for MAC (P = 0.51). In terms of progression/relapse, the 2-year cumulative incidence was 10% (95% CI, 5%-19%) for RIC and 9% (95% CI, 4%-14%) for MAC (P = 0.46). Higher intensity conditioning did not seem to improve outcomes for higher-risk disease, according to mutational, cytogenetic, and clinical profile. In contrast, patients with reduced performance status, matched unrelated donors, and ASXL1 mutations appeared to benefit from RIC in terms of overall survival.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Busulfan and Its Metabolite Sulfolane in Patients with Myelofibrosis Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

For patients with myelofibrosis, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) remains the only curative treatment to date. Busulfan-based conditioning regimens are commonly used, although high inter-individual variability (IIV) in busulfan drug exposure makes individual dose selection challenging. Since data regarding the IIV in patients with myelofibrosis are sparse, this study aimed to develop a population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model of busulfan and its metabolite sulfolane in patients with myelofibrosis. The influence of patient-specific covariates on the pharmacokinetics of drug and metabolite was assessed using non-linear mixed effects modeling in NONMEM^®. We obtained 523 plasma concentrations of busulfan and its metabolite sulfolane from 37 patients with myelofibrosis. The final model showed a population clearance (CL) and volume of distribution (V_d) of 0.217 L/h/kg and 0.82 L/kg for busulfan and 0.021 L/h/kg and 0.65 L/kg for its metabolite. Total body weight (TBW) and a single-nucleotide polymorphism of glutathione-S-transferase A1 (GSTA1 SNP) displayed a significant impact on volume of distribution and metabolite clearance, respectively. This is the first PopPK-model developed to describe busulfan’s pharmacokinetics in patients with myelofibrosis. Incorporating its metabolite sulfolane into the model not only allowed the characterization of the covariate relationship between GSTA1 and the clearance of the metabolite but also improved the understanding of busulfan’s metabolic pathway.

Improving allogeneic stem cell transplantation in myelofibrosis

In this review, we will outline dimensions in which outcome of patients with myelofibrosis undergoing curative treatment can be optimized: patient selection, transplant procedure, and posttransplant prevention or treatment of relapse. For patient selection, fortunately, as with several other hematologic malignancies, the management of patients with myelofibrosis has very much entered the molecular era, with the establishment of several driver and nondriver mutations, allowing more individualized selection for treatment. For the transplant procedure itself, different conditioning intensities do not seem to play a distinctive role with regards to outcome posttransplant but still need to be compared in the molecular era. While many patients nowadays may receive ruxolitinib before transplant, recent studies may facilitate fine-tuning and integration of ruxolitinib into the transplant algorithm. The role of novel inhibitors for the transplant setting remains unclear. For the posttransplant phase, evidence remains scarce, with experiences of donor-lymphocyte infusions for relapse management but more efforts are needed in understanding relapse and identifying and treating patients at high risk for relapse.

The Use of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Primary Myelofibrosis

Primary myelofibrosis (PMF) is a BCR-ABL1 negative myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by clonal proliferation of myeloid cells. This leads to reactive bone marrow fibrosis, ultimately resulting in progressive marrow failure, hepatosplenomegaly, and extramedullary hematopoiesis. PMF is considered the most aggressive of the BCR-ABL1 negative myeloproliferative neoplasms with the least favorable prognosis. Constitutional symptoms are common, which can impact an individual’s quality of life and leukemic transformation remains an important cause of death in PMF patients. The development of the Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) inhibitors have provided a good option for management of PMF-related symptoms. Unfortunately, these agents have not been shown to improve overall survival or significantly alter the course of disease. Allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) remains the only curative treatment option in PMF. However, allo-HSCT is associated with significant treatment-related morbidity and mortality and has historically been reserved for younger, high-risk patients. This review examines patient, disease, and transplant-specific factors which may impact transplant-related outcomes in PMF. Through the vast improvements in donor selection, conditioning regimens, and post-transplant care, allo-HSCT may provide a safe and effective curative option for a broader range of PMF patients in the future.

How We Manage Myelofibrosis Candidates for Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation

Moving from indication to transplantation is a critical process in myelofibrosis. Most of guidelines specifically focus on either myelofibrosis disease or transplant procedure, and, currently, no distinct indication for the management of MF candidates to transplant is available. Nevertheless, this period of time is crucial for the transplant outcome because engraftment, non-relapse mortality, and relapse incidence are greatly dependent upon the pre-transplant management. Based on these premises, in this review, we will go through the path of identification of the MF patients suitable for a transplant, by using disease-specific prognostic scores, and the evaluation of eligibility for a transplant, based on performance, comorbidity, and other combined tools. Then, we will focus on the process of donor and conditioning regimens’ choice. The pre-transplant management of splenomegaly and constitutional symptoms, cytopenias, iron overload and transplant timing will be comprehensively discussed. The principal aim of this review is, therefore, to give a practical guidance for managing MF patients who are potential candidates for allo-HCT.

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.

Outcomes of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Patients With Myelofibrosis-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) remains the only potentially curative therapeutic modality for patients with primary or secondary myelofibrosis (MF). However, many patients are considered ineligible for allo-HCT, and transplant-related mortality can be substantial. Data on the efficacy and safety of allo-HCT are mixed and largely derived from retrospective studies. We aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of allo-HCT in MF and to identify patient, disease, and transplant characteristics with prognostic impact on outcomes of patients with MF undergoing allo-HCT. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched from inception to October 11, 2020, for studies on allo-HCT in MF. Random-effects models were used to pool response rates for the co-primary outcomes of 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year overall survival (OS). Rates of non-relapse mortality and acute and chronic graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) were studied as secondary endpoints. Subgroup analyses on the effect of conditioning regimen intensity, baseline dynamic international prognostic scoring system (DIPSS) score, and patient age were performed. The study protocol has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020188706). Forty-three studies with 8739 patients were identified and included in this meta-analysis. Rates of 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year OS were 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.5%-69.8%), 64.4% (95% CI, 57.6%-70.6%), and 55.0% (95% CI, 51.8%-58.3%), respectively. Rates of 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year nonrelapse mortality were 25.9% (95% CI, 23.3%-28.7%), 29.7% (95% CI, 24.5%-35.4%), and 30.5% (95% CI, 25.9%-35.5%), respectively. The combined rate of graft failure was 10.6% (95% CI, 8.9%-12.5%) with primary and secondary graft failure occurring in 7.3% (95% CI, 5.7%-9.4%) and 5.9% (95% CI, 4.3%-8.0%) of patients, respectively. Rates of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease were 44.0% (95% CI, 39.6%-48.4%; grade III/IV: 15.2%) and 46.5% (95% CI, 42.2%-50.8%; extensive or moderate/severe: 26.1%), respectively. Subgroup analyses did not show any significant difference between conditioning regimen intensity (myeloablative versus reduced-intensity), median patient age, and proportion of DIPSS-intermediate-2/high patients. The quality of the evidence is limited by the absence of randomized clinical trials in the field and the heterogeneity of patient and transplant characteristics across included studies. Given the poor prognosis of patients not receiving transplants and in the absence of curative nontransplantation therapies, our results support consideration of allo-HCT for eligible patients with MF.

Survival following allogeneic transplant in patients with myelofibrosis

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only curative therapy for myelofibrosis (MF). In this large multicenter retrospective study, overall survival (OS) in MF patients treated with allogeneic HCT (551 patients) and without HCT (non-HCT) (1377 patients) was analyzed with Cox proportional hazards model. Survival analysis stratified by the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) revealed that the first year of treatment arm assignment, due to upfront risk of transplant-related mortality (TRM), HCT was associated with inferior OS compared with non-HCT (non-HCT vs HCT: DIPSS intermediate 1 [Int-1]: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.26, P < .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 0.39, P < .0001). Similarly, in the DIPSS low-risk MF group, due to upfront TRM risk, OS was superior with non-HCT therapies compared with HCT in the first-year post treatment arm assignment (HR, 0.16, P = .006). However, after 1 year, OS was not significantly different (HR, 1.38, P = .451). Beyond 1 year of treatment arm assignment, an OS advantage with HCT therapy in Int-1 and higher DIPSS score patients was observed (non-HCT vs HCT: DIPSS-Int-1: HR, 2.64, P < .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 2.55, P < .0001). In conclusion, long-term OS advantage with HCT was observed for patients with Int-1 or higher risk MF, but at the cost of early TRM. The magnitude of OS benefit with HCT increased as DIPSS risk score increased and became apparent with longer follow-up.

Allogeneic Hemopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Myelofibrosis: 2021

The aim of this review is to update the current status of allogeneic hemopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) for patients with myelofibrosis (MF). We have first summarized the issue of an indication for allogeneic HSCT, discussing several prognostic scoring systems, developed to predict the outcome of MF, and therefore to identify patients who will benefit of an allogeneic HSCT. Patients with low risk MF are usually not selected for a transplant, whereas patients with intermediate or high risk MF are eligible. A separate issue, is how to predict the outcome of HSCT: we will outline a clinical molecular myelofibrosis transplant scoring system (MTSS), which predicts overall survival, ranging from 90% for low risk patients, to 20% for very high risk patients. We will also discuss transfusion burden and spleen size, as predictors of transplant outcome. The choice of a transplant platform including the conditioning regimen, the stem cell source and GvHD prophylaxis, are crucial for a successful program in MF, and will be outlined. Complications such as poor graft function, graft failure, GvHD and relapse of the disease, will also be reviewed. Finally we discuss monitoring the disease after HSCT with donor chimerism, driver mutations and hematologic data. We have made an effort to make this review as comprehensive and up to date as possible, and we hope it will provide some useful data for the clinicians.

Optimizing the Conditioning Regimen for Hematopoietic Cell Transplant in Myelofibrosis: Long-Term Results of a Prospective Phase II Clinical Trial

Optimal conditioning regimens for older patients with myelofibrosis undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant are not known. Likewise, the role of dose intensity is not clear. We conducted a nonrandomized, prospective, phase II trial using low-dose, later escalated to high-dose (myeloablative conditioning), busulfan with fludarabine (Bu-Flu) in myelofibrosis patients up to age 74 years. The first 15 patients received i.v. busulfan 130 mg/m²/day on days -3 and -2 ("low dose"); 31 patients received high-dose conditioning, either 100 mg/m²/day (days -5 to -2; n = 4) or pharmacokinetic-guided area under the curve of 4000 μmol/min (days -5 to -2; n = 27). The primary endpoint was day 100 nonrelapse mortality (NRM). Median age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR], 53-63). Dynamic international prognostic scoring system-plus was intermediate (n = 28) or high (n = 18). Donors were related (n = 19) or unrelated (n = 27). Cumulative incidence of NRM was 9.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-20.3) at day 100 and at 3 years in the high-dose group and 0% in the low-dose group at day 100, which increased to 20% (95% CI, 0-41.9) at 3 years. With a median follow-up of 5.1 years (IQR, 3.8-6), 3-year relapse was 32.3% (95% CI, 15.4-49.1) in high dose versus 53.3% (95% CI, 26.6-80.1) in low dose. Event-free survival was 58% (95% CI, 43-78) versus 27% (95% CI, 12-62), and overall survival was 74% (95% CI, 60-91) versus 60% (95% CI, 40-91). In multivariate analysis, high-dose busulfan had a trend toward lower relapse (hazard ratio, .44; 95% CI, .18-1.07; P = .07), with no impact on NRM. Intensifying the Bu-Flu regimen using pharmacokinetic-monitoring appears to be promising in reducing relapse without increasing NRM.

Determinants of survival in myelofibrosis patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation

We aimed to evaluate the determinants of survival in myelofibrosis patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) and to describe factors predicting the main post-HCT complications. This retrospective study by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation included 2916 myelofibrosis patients who underwent first allo-HCT from an HLA-identical sibling or unrelated donor between 2000 and 2016. After a median follow-up of 4.7 years from transplant, projected median survival of the series was 5.3 years. Factors independently associated with increased mortality were age ≥ 60 years and Karnofsky Performance Status <90% at transplant, and occurrence of graft failure, grades III-IV acute graft-vs.-host disease (aGVHD), and disease progression/relapse during follow-up. The opposing effects of chronic graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD) on non-relapse mortality and relapse incidence resulted in a neutral influence on survival. Graft failure increased in unrelated donor recipients and decreased with myeloablative conditioning (MAC) and negative donor/recipient cytomegalovirus serostatus. Risk of grades III-IV aGVHD was higher with unrelated donors and decreased with MAC. Relapse incidence tended to be higher in patients with intermediate-2/high-risk DIPSS categories and to decrease in CALR-mutated patients. Acute and chronic GVHD reduced the subsequent risk of relapse. This information has potential implications for patient counseling and clinical decision-making.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for myelofibrosis

Myelofibrosis is one of the Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms with heterogeneous clinical course. Though many treatment options, including Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, have provided clinical benefits and improved survival, allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (AHSCT) remains the only potentially curative therapy. Considering the significant transplant-related morbidity and mortality, it is crucial to decide who to proceed to AHSCT, and when. In this review, we discuss recent updates in patient selection, prior splenectomy, conditioning regimen, donor type, molecular mutation, and other factors affecting AHSCT outcomes. Relapse is a major cause of treatment failure; we also describe recent data on minimal residual disease monitoring and management of relapse. In addition, emerging studies have reported pretransplant therapy with ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis showing favorable results, and further research is needed to explore its use in the post-transplant setting.