Epigenetic Dysregulation of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

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.

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.