Incorporating novel approaches in the management of MDS beyond conventional hypomethylating agents

The clinical regimens and cell membrane camouflaged nanodrug delivery systems in hematologic malignancies treatment

Hematologic malignancies (HMs), also referred to as hematological or blood cancers, pose significant threats to patients as they impact the blood, bone marrow, and lymphatic system. Despite significant clinical strategies using chemotherapy, radiotherapy, stem cell transplantation, targeted molecular therapy, or immunotherapy, the five-year overall survival of patients with HMs is still low. Fortunately, recent studies demonstrate that the nanodrug delivery system holds the potential to address these challenges and foster effective anti-HMs with precise treatment. In particular, cell membrane camouflaged nanodrug offers enhanced drug targeting, reduced toxicity and side effects, and/or improved immune response to HMs. This review firstly introduces the merits and demerits of clinical strategies in HMs treatment, and then summarizes the types, advantages, and disadvantages of current nanocarriers helping drug delivery in HMs treatment. Furthermore, the types, functions, and mechanisms of cell membrane fragments that help nanodrugs specifically targeted to and accumulate in HM lesions are introduced in detail. Finally, suggestions are given about their clinical translation and future designs on the surface of nanodrugs with multiple functions to improve therapeutic efficiency for cancers.

Mechanisms of Action of Hypomethylating Agents: Endogenous Retroelements at the Epicenter

Abnormal DNA methylation patterns are thought to drive the pathobiology of high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Sixteen years after their initial approval, the hypomethylating agents (HMAs), 5-azacytidine (AZA) and 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine, remain the mainstay of treatment for HR-MDS and AML. However, a connection of the hypomethylating or additional effects of HMAs with clinical responses remains yet to be shown, and the mode of action of HMAs remains obscure. Given the relatively short-lived responses and the inevitable development of resistance in HMAs, a thorough understanding of the antineoplastic mechanisms employed by HMAs holds critical importance. Recent data in cancer cell lines demonstrate that reactivation of endogenous retroelements (EREs) and induction of a cell-intrinsic antiviral response triggered by RNA neotranscripts may underlie the antitumor activity of HMAs. However, data on primary CD34⁺ cells derived from patients with HR-MDS failed to confirm a link between HMA-mediated ERE modulation and clinical response. Though difficult to reconcile the apparent discrepancy, it is possible that HMAs mediate their effects in more advanced levels of differentiation where cells become responsive to interferon, whereas, inter-individual variations in the process of RNA editing and, in particular, in the ADAR1/OAS/RNase L pathway may also confound the associations of clinical response with the induction of viral mimicry. Further ex vivo studies along with clinical correlations in well-annotated patient cohorts are warranted to decipher the role of ERE derepression in the antineoplastic mechanisms of HMAs.

Hematological malignancies and molecular targeting therapy

Recent genetic analysis using next-generation sequencing (NGS) vastly improved the understanding of molecular mechanism of hematological malignancies. Many molecular targeting drugs have since been used in the clinic, which is timely as clinical outcomes using conventional chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) reached a plateau. The first memorable success in this field was imatinib, a first-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which has been applied in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) since 2001. Imatinib drastically changed CML treatment and many CML patients no longer require HSCT. Recently, the second generation TKIs, dasatinib, nilotinib, and ponatinib, have also been available for CML patients. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is sub-categorized based on cytogenetic or molecular genetic abnormalities. Chemotherapy and HSCT combined with TKI improved the event-free survival rate from 20% to 80% in Philadelphia (Ph) chromosome-positive ALL. Reportedly, another Ph-like ALL subgroup with poor prognosis can also be treated by TKIs; additionally, cell therapies that include bispecific T-cell engagers or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T therapy are emerging. Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogenous disease and FMS-like related tyrosine kinase-3 (FLT3)-internal tandem duplication, is the most robust marker for poor prognosis. Several first-generation TKIs have been studied for clinical use. Notably, chemotherapy plus midostaurin improved survival compared with chemotherapy alone. Therefore, midostaurin was approved to treat adult AML patients with FLT3-ITD in 2017. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, a selective anti-CD33 antibody-calicheamicin conjugate, is approved for clinical practice. Many molecular targeting agents are now being used for hematological malignancies.

Infections in Myelodysplastic Syndrome in Relation to Stage and Therapy

Infections remain a significant problem in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) in treated as well in non-treated patients and assume a particular complexity. The susceptibility to infections is due, in the absence of intensive chemotherapies, mainly to functional defects in the myeloid lineage with or without neutropenia. Furthermore, MDS includes a heterogeneous group of patients with very different prognosis, therapy and risk factors regarding survival and infections. You should distinguish risk factors related to the disease, like as neutrophils function impairment, neutropenia, unfavorable cytogenetics and bone marrow insufficiency; factors related to the patient, like as age and comorbidities, and factors related to the therapy. When the patients with MDS are submitted to intensive chemotherapy with and without hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), they have a risk factor for infection very similar to that of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and mostly related to neutropenia. Patients with MDS treated with supportive therapy only or with demethylating agent or lenalidomide or immunosuppressive drugs should have a tailored approach. Most of the infections in MDS originate from bacteria, and the main risk factors are represented by neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and unfavorable cytogenetics. Thus, it is reasonable to give antibacterial prophylaxis to patients who start the therapy with demethylating agents with a number of neutrophils <500 × 10⁹/L, or with thrombocytopenia and unfavorable cytogenetics. The antifungal prophylaxis is not considered cost/benefit adequate and should be taken into consideration only when there is an antecedent fungal infection or presence of filamentous fungi in the surveillance cultures. Subjects submitted to immunosuppression with ATG+CSA have a high rate of infections, and when severely neutropenic should ideally be nursed in isolation, should be given prophylactic antibiotics and antifungals, regular mouth care including an antiseptic mouthwash.