Impact of TP53 on outcome of patients with myelofibrosis undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

The Gordian knot: ruxolitinib or transplants for high-risk myelofibrosis

Not available.

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.

Impact of busulfan versus treosulfan dose intensity in myelofibrosis undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation

One key aspect of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is pretransplant conditioning, balancing risk for relapse versus non-relapse mortality. Conditioning regimens with different alkylators at different doses can influence outcome, but data are missing for myelofibrosis, a challenging cohort of patients usually presenting at older age and with comorbidities. We evaluated in a multicenter retrospective study the comparative efficacy and safety of busulfan versus treosulfan in combination with fludarabine for myelofibrosis patients undergoing HCT. This study included 1115 patients (busulfan, n = 902; treosulfan, n = 213) receiving first HCT between 2005 and 2021. Patients were generally balanced for key patient characteristics. Overall survival at 4 years was 62% for the busulfan group versus 58% for the treosulfan group (p = .22). Impact on outcome was dose-dependent. Overall survival was 65% (95% CI, 61%-69%) for reduced intensity busulfan versus 69% (95% CI, 54%-84%) for reduced intensity treosulfan, 53% (95% CI, 44%-63%) for higher intensity busulfan, and 55% (95% CI, 46%-63%) for higher intensity treosulfan. Incidence of relapse was similar across intensity groups. In multivariable analysis, the hazard for death (with reduced intensity busulfan as reference) was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.39-2.01) for reduced intensity treosulfan (p = .77), 1.42 (95% CI, 0.96-2.10) for higher intensity busulfan (0.08), and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.14-2.26) for higher intensity treosulfan (p = .006). In terms of non-relapse mortality, comparison was not significantly different, while the hazard ratio for higher intensity treosulfan was 1.48 (95% CI, 0.98-2.23; p = .06). Here, we showed comparable outcomes and improved survival in myelofibrosis undergoing HCT with reduced intensity busulfan or treosulfan.

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.

The prognostic contribution of CBL, NRAS, KRAS, RUNX1, and TP53 mutations to mutation-enhanced international prognostic score systems (MIPSS70/plus/plus v2.0) for primary myelofibrosis

Contemporary risk models in primary myelofibrosis (PMF) include the mutation (MIPSS70) and mutation/karyotype enhanced (MIPSS70 plus/v2.0) international prognostic scoring systems. High molecular risk (HMR) mutations incorporated in one or both of these models include ASXL1, SRSF2, EZH2, IDH1/2, and U2AF1Q157; the current study examines additional prognostic contribution from more recently described HMR mutations, including CBL, NRAS, KRAS, RUNX1, and TP53. In a cohort of 363 informative cases (median age 58 years; 60% males), mutations included JAK2 61%, CALR 24%, MPL 6%, ASXL1 29%, SRSF2 10%, U2AF1Q157 5%, EZH2 10%, IDH1/2 4%, TP53 5%, CBL 5%, NRAS 7%, KRAS 4%, and RUNX1 4%. At a median follow-up of 4.6 years, 135 (37%) deaths and 42 (11.6%) leukemic transformations were recorded. Univariate analysis confirmed significant survival impact from the original MIPSS70/plus/v2.0 HMR mutations as well as CBL (HR 2.8; p < .001), NRAS (HR 2.4; p < .001), KRAS (HR 2.1; p = .01), and TP53 (HR 2.4; p = .004), but not RUNX1 mutations (HR 1.8; p = .08). Multivariate analysis (MVA) that included both the original and more recently described HMR mutations confirmed independent prognostic contribution from ASXL1 (HR 1.8; p = .007), SRSF2 (HR 4.3; p < .001), U2AF1Q157 (HR 2.9, p = .004), and EZH2 (HR 2.4; p < .001), but not from IDH1/2 (p = .3), TP53 (p = .2), CBL (p = .3), NRAS (p = .8) or KRAS (p = .2) mutations. The lack of additional prognostic value from CBL, NRAS, KRAS, RUNX1, and TP53 was further demonstrated in the setting of (i) MVA of mutations and karyotype, (ii) MVA of MIPSS70/plus/v2.0 composite scores and each one of the recently described HMR mutations, except TP53, and iii) modified MIPSS70/plus/plus v2.0 that included CBL, NRAS, KRAS, and TP53 as part of the HMR constituency, operationally referred to as "HMR+" category. Furthermore, "HMR+" enhancement of MIPSS70/plus/plus v2.0 did not result in improved model performance, as measured by C-statistics. We conclude that prognostic integrity of MIPSS70/plus/plus v2.0, as well as their genetic components, was sustained and their value not significantly upgraded by the inclusion of more recently described HMR mutations, including CBL, NRAS, KRAS, and RUNX1. Additional studies are needed to clarify the apparent additional prognostic value of TP53 mutation and its allelic state.

Blast phase myeloproliferative neoplasm: contemporary review and 2024 treatment algorithm

Leukemic transformation in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), also referred to as "blast-phase MPN", is the most feared disease complication, with incidence estimates of 1-4% for essential thrombocythemia, 3-7% for polycythemia vera, and 9-13% for primary myelofibrosis. Diagnosis of MPN-BP requires the presence of ≥20% circulating or bone marrow blasts; a lower level of excess blasts (10-19%) constitutes "accelerated phase" disease (MPN-AP). Neither "intensive" nor "less intensive" chemotherapy, by itself, secures long-term survival in MPN-BP. Large-scale retrospective series have consistently shown a dismal prognosis in MPN-BP, with 1- and 3-year survival estimates of <20% and <5%, respectively. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) offers the possibility of a >30% 3-year survival rate and should be pursued, ideally, while the patient is still in chronic phase disease. The value of pre-transplant bridging chemotherapy is uncertain in MPN-AP while it is advised in MPN-BP; in this regard, we currently favor combination chemotherapy with venetoclax (Ven) and hypomethylating agent (HMA); response is more likely in the absence of complex/monosomal karyotype and presence of TET2 mutation. Furthermore, in the presence of an IDH mutation, the use of IDH inhibitors, either alone or in combination with Ven-HMA, can be considered. Pre-transplant clearance of excess blasts is desired but not mandated; in this regard, additional salvage chemotherapy is more likely to compromise transplant eligibility rather than improve post-transplant survival. Controlled studies are needed to determine the optimal pre- and post-transplant measures that target transplant-associated morbidity and post-transplant relapse.