Differences in presenting features, outcome and prognostic models in patients with primary myelofibrosis and post-polycythemia vera and/or post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis treated with ruxolitinib. New perspective of the MYSEC-PM in a large multicenter study⁎

Prognostic and Predictive Models in Myelofibrosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Myelofibrosis (MF) includes prefibrotic primary MF (pre-PMF), overt-PMF and secondary MF (SMF). Median overall survival (OS) of pre-PMF, overt-PMF and SMF patients is around 14 years, seven and nine years, respectively. Main causes of mortality are non-clonal progression and transformation into blast phase.

RECENT FINDINGS

Discoveries on the impact of the biological architecture on OS have led to the design of integrated scores to predict survival in PMF. For SMF, OS estimates should be calculated by the specific MYSEC-PM (MYelofibrosis SECondary-prognostic model). Information on the prognostic role of the molecular landscape in SMF is accumulating. Crucial treatment decisions for MF patients could be now supported by multivariable predictive algorithms. OS should become a relevant endpoint of clinical trials. Prognostic models guide prediction of OS and treatment planning in MF, therefore, their timely application is critical in the personalized approach of MF patients.

Epidemiology and disease characteristics of myelofibrosis: a comparative analysis between Italy and global perspectives

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a clonal disorder of hematopoietic stem cells characterized by altered bone marrow function and fibrosis. The aim of this narrative review is to report on the most recent epidemiologic data and to discuss features of MF and current strategies for the management of this condition in clinical practice. MF features covered by our review will include: characteristics of patients with MF; myeloproliferative and myelodepletive phenotypes; MF-associated thrombosis and bleeding; risk of infections; prefibrotic and overt PMF; secondary MF. Finally, we will discuss a few aspects of MF management in clinical practice and suggest strategies for its optimization and standardization. The focus of our paper is on Italy, but relevant data from other countries will also be reviewed.

Myelofibrosis and Survival Prognostic Models: A Journey between Past and Future

Among the myeloproliferative diseases, myelofibrosis is a widely heterogeneous entity characterized by a highly variable prognosis. In this context, several prognostic models have been proposed to categorize these patients appropriately. Identifying who deserves more invasive treatments, such as bone marrow transplantation, is a critical clinical need. Age, complete blood count (above all, hemoglobin value), constitutional symptoms, driver mutations, and blast cells have always represented the milestones of the leading models still used worldwide (IPSS, DIPSS, MYSEC-PM). Recently, the advent of new diagnostic techniques (among all, next-generation sequencing) and the extensive use of JAK inhibitor drugs have allowed the development and validation of new models (MIPSS-70 and version 2.0, GIPSS, RR6), which are continuously updated. Finally, the new frontier of artificial intelligence promises to build models capable of drawing an overall survival perspective for each patient. This review aims to collect and summarize the existing standard prognostic models in myelofibrosis and examine the setting where each of these finds its best application.

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.

Prediction of Survival and Prognosis Migration from Gold-Standard Scores in Myelofibrosis Patients Treated with Ruxolitinib Applying the RR6 Prognostic Model in a Monocentric Real-Life Setting

The wide use of ruxolitinib, approved for treating primary and secondary myelofibrosis (MF), has revolutionized the landscape of these diseases. This molecule can reduce spleen volume and constitutional symptoms, guaranteeing patients a better quality of life and survival or even a valid bridge to bone marrow transplantation. Despite a rapid response within the first 3 to 6 months of treatment, some patients fail to achieve a significant benefit or lose early response. After ruxolitinib failure, new drugs are available to provide an additional therapeutic option for these patients. However, the correct timing point for deciding on a therapy shift is still an open challenge. Recently, a clinical prognostic score named RR6 (Response to Ruxolitinib after 6 months) was proposed to determine survival after 6 months of treatment with ruxolitinib in patients affected by MF. We applied this model to a cohort of consecutive patients treated at our center to validate the results obtained in terms of median overall survival (mOS): for the low-risk class, mOS was not reached (as in the training cohort); for the intermediate-risk, mOS was 52 months (95% CI 39-106); for the high-risk, it was 33 (95% 8.5-59). Moreover, in addition to the other studies present in the literature, we evaluated how the new RR6 score could better identify primary MF patients at high risk, with a slight or no agreement compared to DIPSS, contrary to what occurs in secondary MF. Thus, we were able to confirm the predictive power of the RR6 model in our series, which might be of help in guiding future therapeutic choices.

Germline-somatic JAK2 interactions are associated with clonal expansion in myelofibrosis

Myelofibrosis is a rare myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) with high risk for progression to acute myeloid leukemia. Our integrated genomic analysis of up to 933 myelofibrosis cases identifies 6 germline susceptibility loci, 4 of which overlap with previously identified MPN loci. Virtual karyotyping identifies high frequencies of mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs), with enrichment at myelofibrosis GWAS susceptibility loci and recurrently somatically mutated MPN genes (e.g., JAK2). We replicate prior MPN associations showing germline variation at the 9p24.1 risk haplotype confers elevated risk of acquiring JAK2^V617F mutations, demonstrating with long-read sequencing that this relationship occurs in cis. We also describe recurrent 9p24.1 large mCAs that selectively retained JAK2^V617F mutations. Germline variation associated with longer telomeres is associated with increased myelofibrosis risk. Myelofibrosis cases with high-frequency JAK2 mCAs have marked reductions in measured telomere length – suggesting a relationship between telomere biology and myelofibrosis clonal expansion. Our results advance understanding of the germline-somatic interaction at JAK2 and implicate mCAs involving JAK2 as strong promoters of clonal expansion of those mutated clones.

Myelofibrosis is a risk factor for the development of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia. Here, the authors carry out an integrated genomic investigation of 933 myelofibrosis patients, and identified interactions between germline and somatic variation in patients who required haematopoietic cell transplantation.

The clinical dilemma of JAK inhibitor failure in myelofibrosis: Predictive characteristics and outcomes

Two Janus‐associated kinase inhibitors (JAKi) (initially ruxolitinib and, more recently, fedratinib) have been approved as treatment options for patients who have intermediate‐risk and high‐risk myelofibrosis (MF), with pivotal trials demonstrating improvements in spleen volume, disease symptoms, and quality of life. At the same time, however, clinical trial experiences with JAKi agents in MF have demonstrated a high frequency of discontinuations because of adverse events or progressive disease. In addition, overall survival benefits and clinical and molecular predictors of response have not been established in this population, for which the disease burden is high and treatment options are limited. Consistently poor outcomes have been documented after JAKi discontinuation, with survival durations after ruxolitinib ranging from 11 to 16 months across several studies. To address such a high unmet therapeutic need, various non‐JAKi agents are being actively explored (in combination with ruxolitinib in first‐line or salvage settings and/or as monotherapy in JAKi‐pretreated patients) in phase 3 clinical trials, including pelabresib (a bromodomain and extraterminal domain inhibitor), navitoclax (a B‐cell lymphoma 2/B‐cell lymphoma 2‐xL inhibitor), parsaclisib (a phosphoinositide 3‐kinase inhibitor), navtemadlin (formerly KRT‐232; a murine double‐minute chromosome 2 inhibitor), and imetelstat (a telomerase inhibitor). The breadth of data expected from these trials will provide insight into the ability of non‐JAKi treatments to modify the natural history of MF.

Janus‐associated kinase inhibitor (JAKi) agents improved spleen volume and symptoms in patients who had myelofibrosis but were associated with high discontinuation rates, a lack of predictors of response, and poor outcomes after discontinuation. Non‐JAKi agents, in combination with or subsequent to JAK agents, were being actively explored in phase 3 clinical trials.

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).

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.

Progression of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms (MPN): Diagnostic and Therapeutic Perspectives

Classical BCR-ABL-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) are a heterogeneous group of hematologic malignancies, including essential thrombocythemia (ET), polycythemia vera (PV), and primary myelofibrosis (PMF), as well as post-PV-MF and post-ET-MF. Progression to more symptomatic disease, such as overt MF or acute leukemia, represents one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality. There are clinically evident but also subclinical types of MPN progression. Clinically evident progression includes evolution from ET to PV, ET to post-ET-MF, PV to post-PV-MF, or pre-PMF to overt PMF, and transformation of any of these subtypes to myelodysplastic neoplasms or acute leukemia. Thrombosis, major hemorrhage, severe infections, or increasing symptom burden (e.g., pruritus, night sweats) may herald progression. Subclinical types of progression may include increases in the extent of bone marrow fibrosis, increases of driver gene mutational allele burden, and clonal evolution. The underlying causes of MPN progression are diverse and can be attributed to genetic alterations and chronic inflammation. Particularly, bystander mutations in genes encoding epigenetic regulators or splicing factors were associated with progression. Finally, comorbidities such as systemic inflammation, cardiovascular diseases, and organ fibrosis may augment the risk of progression. The aim of this review was to discuss types and mechanisms of MPN progression and how their knowledge might improve risk stratification and therapeutic intervention. In view of these aspects, we discuss the potential benefits of early diagnosis using molecular and functional imaging and exploitable therapeutic strategies that may prevent progression, but also highlight current challenges and methodological pitfalls.

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.

The Prognostic Role of Cytogenetics Analysis in Philadelphia Negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are clonal stem cell disorders characterized collectively by clonal proliferation of myeloid cells with variable morphologic maturity and hematopoietic efficiency. Although the natural history of these neoplasms can be measured sometimes in decades more than years, the cytogenetics analysis can offer useful information regarding the prognosis. Cytogenetics has a well-established prognostic role in acute leukemias and in myelodysplastic syndromes, where it drives the clinical decisions. NGS techniques can find adverse mutations with clear prognostic value and are currently included in the prognostic evaluation of MPNs in scores such as MIPSS, GIPSS, MIPSS-PV, and MIPSS-ET. We suggest that cytogenetics (considering its availability and relative cost) has a role regarding prognostic and therapeutic decisions.

Effect of pre-transplant JAK1/2 inhibitors and CD34 dose on transplant outcomes in myelofibrosis

Allogeneic hematopoeitic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is the only curative treatment for myelofibrosis (MF). We evaluate the impact of various factors on survival outcomes post-transplant in MF. Data of 89 consecutive MF patients (primary 47%) who underwent allo-HCT between 2005 and 2018 was evaluated. Fifty-four percent patients had received JAK1/2 inhibitors (JAKi) pre-HCT. The median CD34 count was 7.1x10⁶ cells/kg. Graft failure was seen in 10% of the patients. Grade 3-4 acute GVHD (aGVHD) and moderate/severe chronic graft versus host disease (cGVHD) occurred in 24% and 40% patients, respectively. Two-year overall survival (OS) and relapse free survival (RFS) were 51% and 43%, respectively. Cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) and non-relapse mortality (NRM) at 2 years were 11% and 46%, respectively. Higher CD34 cell dose (≤5 × 10⁶ cells/kg vs 5-9 or ≥9 × 10⁶  cells/kg) and lower pre-HCT ferritin (</=1000 ng/ml) were associated with better OS, RFS and lower NRM. Grade 3-4 aGVHD was associated with higher NRM. Use of pre-transplant JAKi was associated with lower incidence of grade 3-4 aGVHD. In summary, higher CD34 cell dose is associated with better allo-HCT outcomes in MF and pre-HCT JAKi use is associated with reduced risk of severe aGVHD. These two modifiable parameters should be considered during allo-HCT for MF.

Recent Advances in the Use of Molecular Analyses to Inform the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Patients with Polycythaemia Vera

Genetic studies in the past decade have improved our understanding of the molecular basis of the BCR-ABL1-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) polycythaemia vera (PV). Such breakthroughs include the discovery of the JAK2V617F driver mutation in approximately 95% of patients with PV, as well as some very rare cases of familial hereditary MPN caused by inherited germline mutations. Patients with PV often progress to fibrosis or acute myeloid leukaemia, both associated with very poor clinical outcome. Moreover, thrombosis and major bleeding are the principal causes of morbidity and mortality. As a result of increasingly available and economical next-generation sequencing technologies, mutational studies have revealed the prognostic relevance of a few somatic mutations in terms of thrombotic risk and risk of transformation, helping to improve the risk stratification of patients with PV. Finally, knowledge of the molecular basis of PV has helped identify targets for directed therapy. The constitutive activation of the tyrosine kinase JAK2 is targeted by ruxolitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor for PV patients who are resistant or intolerant to cytoreductive treatment with hydroxyurea. Other molecular mechanisms have also been revealed, and numerous agents are in various stages of development. Here, we will provide an update of the recent published literature on how molecular testing can improve the diagnosis and prognosis of patients with PV and present recent advances that may have prognostic value in the near future.

Gene expression profile correlates with molecular and clinical features in patients with myelofibrosis

Myelofibrosis (MF) belongs to the family of classic Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). It can be primary myelofibrosis (PMF) or secondary myelofibrosis (SMF) evolving from polycythemia vera (PV) or essential thrombocythemia (ET). Despite the differences, PMF and SMF patients are currently managed in the same way, and prediction of survival is based on the same clinical and genetic features. In the last few years, interest has grown concerning the ability of gene expression profiles (GEPs) to provide valuable prognostic information. Here, we studied the GEPs of granulocytes from 114 patients with MF, using a microarray platform to identify correlations with patient characteristics and outcomes. Cox regression analysis led to the identification of 201 survival-related transcripts characterizing patients who are at high risk for death. High-risk patients identified by this gene signature displayed an inferior overall survival and leukemia-free survival, together with clinical and molecular detrimental features included in contemporary prognostic models, such as the presence of high molecular risk mutations. The high-risk group was enriched in post-PV and post-ET MF and JAK2V617F homozygous patients, whereas pre-PMF was more frequent in the low-risk group. These results demonstrate that GEPs in MF patients correlate with their molecular and clinical features, particularly their survival, and represent the proof of concept that GEPs might provide complementary prognostic information to be applied in clinical decision making.

Important Pathologic Considerations for Establishing the Diagnosis of Myelofibrosis

Diagnostic criteria for primary myelofibrosis as defined by the 2017 revised World Health Organization (WHO) classification system incorporate clinical and laboratory findings, including driver mutational status (JAK2, MPL, CALR. and triple negative). The WHO emphasized the role of histopathology in making an accurate diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis and successfully incorporated a fibrosis scoring system and scoring schemas for collagen fibrosis and osteosclerosis. These steps represent a significant addition to the standardization of myelofibrosis evaluation and minimize the risk for misdiagnosis. This article reviews important pathologic considerations along with highlights of potentially relevant pitfalls relevant to histopathological diagnosis of myelofibrosis.

JAK Inhibition for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis: Limitations and Future Perspectives

The 2011 approval of ruxolitinib ushered in the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor era in the treatment of myelofibrosis (MF), and 2019 saw the US approval of fedratinib. The first therapeutic agents approved by regulatory authorities for MF, these drugs attenuate the overactive JAK-signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) signaling universally present in these patients, translating into major clinical benefits in terms of spleen shrinkage and symptom improvement. These, in turn, confer a survival advantage on patients with advanced disease, demonstrated in the case of ruxolitinib, for which long-term follow-up data are available. However, JAK inhibitors do not improve cytopenias in most patients, have relatively modest effects on bone marrow fibrosis and driver mutation allele burden, and clinical resistance eventually develops. Furthermore, they do not modify the risk of transformation to blast phase; indeed, their mechanism of action may be more anti-inflammatory than truly disease-modifying. This has spurred interest in rational combinations of JAK inhibitors with other agents that may improve cytopenias and drugs that could potentially modify the natural history of MF. Newer JAK inhibitors that are distinguished from ruxolitinib and fedratinib by their ability to improve anemia (eg, momelotinib) or safety and efficacy in severely thrombocytopenic patients (eg, pacritinib) are in phase 3 clinical trials. There is also interest in developing inhibitors that are highly selective for mutant JAK2, as well as "type II" JAK2 inhibitors. Overall, although current JAK inhibitors have limitations, they will likely continue to form the backbone of MF therapy for the foreseeable future.

Calreticulin and cancer

Calreticulin (CALR) is an endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-resident protein involved in a spectrum of cellular processes. In healthy cells, CALR operates as a chaperone and Ca²⁺ buffer to assist correct protein folding within the ER. Besides favoring the maintenance of cellular proteostasis, these cell-intrinsic CALR functions support Ca²⁺-dependent processes, such as adhesion and integrin signaling, and ensure normal antigen presentation on MHC Class I molecules. Moreover, cancer cells succumbing to immunogenic cell death (ICD) expose CALR on their surface, which promotes the uptake of cell corpses by professional phagocytes and ultimately supports the initiation of anticancer immunity. Thus, loss-of-function CALR mutations promote oncogenesis not only as they impair cellular homeostasis in healthy cells, but also as they compromise natural and therapy-driven immunosurveillance. However, the prognostic impact of total or membrane-exposed CALR levels appears to vary considerably with cancer type. For instance, while genetic CALR defects promote pre-neoplastic myeloproliferation, patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms bearing CALR mutations often experience improved overall survival as compared to patients bearing wild-type CALR. Here, we discuss the context-dependent impact of CALR on malignant transformation, tumor progression and response to cancer therapy.

Management of myelofibrosis after ruxolitinib failure

Myelofibrosis is a BCR-ABL1-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by anemia, progressive splenomegaly, extramedullary hematopoiesis, bone marrow fibrosis, constitutional symptoms, leukemic progression, and shortened survival. Constitutive activation of the Janus kinase/signal transducers and activators of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway, and other cellular pathways downstream, leads to myeloproliferation, proinflammatory cytokine expression, and bone marrow remodeling. Transplant is the only curative option for myelofibrosis, but high rates of morbidity and mortality limit eligibility. Several prognostic models have been developed to facilitate treatment decisions. Until the recent approval of fedratinib, a JAK2 inhibitor, ruxolitinib was the only available JAK inhibitor for treatment of intermediate- or high-risk myelofibrosis. Ruxolitinib reduces splenomegaly to some degree in almost all treated patients; however, many patients cannot tolerate ruxolitinib due to dose-dependent drug-related cytopenias, and even patients with a good initial response often develop resistance to ruxolitinib after 2-3 years of therapy. Currently, there is no consensus definition of ruxolitinib failure. Until fedratinib approval, strategies to overcome ruxolitinib resistance or intolerance were mainly different approaches to continued ruxolitinib therapy, including dosing modifications and ruxolitinib rechallenge. Fedratinib and two other JAK2 inhibitors in later stages of clinical development, pacritinib and momelotinib, have been shown to induce clinical responses and improve symptoms in patients previously treated with ruxolitinib. Fedratinib induces robust spleen responses, and pacritinib and momelotinib may have preferential activity in patients with severe cytopenias. Reviewed here are strategies to ameliorate ruxolitinib resistance or intolerance, and outcomes of clinical trials in patients with myelofibrosis receiving second-line JAK inhibitors after ruxolitinib treatment.

Risk factors for progression to blast phase and outcome in 589 patients with myelofibrosis treated with ruxolitinib: Real-world data

The impact of ruxolitinib therapy on evolution to blast phase (BP) in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) is still uncertain. In 589 MF patients treated with ruxolitinib, we investigated incidence and risk factors for BP and we described outcome according to disease characteristics and treatment strategy. After a median follow-up from ruxolitinib start of 3 years (range 0.1-7.6), 65 (11%) patients transformed to BP during (93.8%) or after treatment. BP incidence rate was 3.7 per 100 patient-years, comparably in primary and secondary MF (PMF/SMF) but significantly lower in intermediate-1 risk patients (2.3 vs 5.6 per 100 patient-years in intermediate-2/high-risk patients, P < .001). In PMF and SMF cohorts, previous interferon therapy seemed to correlate with a lower probability of BP (HR 0.13, P = .001 and HR 0.22, P = .02, respectively). In SMF, also platelet count <150 × 10⁹ /l (HR 2.4, P = .03) and peripheral blasts ≥3% (HR 3.3, P = .004) were significantly associated with higher risk of BP. High-risk category according to dynamic International Prognostic Score System (DIPSS) and myelofibrosis secondary to PV and ET Collaboration Prognostic Model (MYSEC-PM predicted BP in patients with PMF and SMF, respectively. Median survival after BP was 0.2 (95% CI: 0.1-0.3) years. Therapy for BP included hypomethylating agents (12.3%), induction chemotherapy (9.2%), allogeneic transplant (6.2%) or supportive care (72.3%). Patients treated with supportive therapy had a median survival of 6 weeks, while 73% of the few transplanted patients were alive at a median follow-up of 2 years. Progression to BP occurs in a significant fraction of ruxolitinib-treated patients and is associated with DIPSS and MYSEC-PM risk in PMF and SMF, respectively.

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.

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.