Evans syndrome: Disease awareness and clinical management in a nation-wide ITP-NET survey.

Evans syndrome (ES) is rare and mostly treated on a "case-by-case" basis and no guidelines are available. With the aim of assessing disease awareness and current management of adult ES, a structured survey was administered to 64 clinicians from 50 Italian participating centers. Clinicians had to be involved in the management of autoimmune cytopenias and were enrolled into the ITP-NET initiative. The survey included domains on epidemiology, diagnosis, and therapy of ES and was designed to capture current practice and suggested work-up and management. Thirty clinicians who had followed a median of 5 patients (1-45)/15 years responded. The combination of AIHA plus ITP was more common than the ITP/AIHA with neutropenia (p < .001) and 25% of patients had an associated condition, including lymphoproliferative syndromes, autoimmune diseases, or primary immunodeficiencies. The agreement of clinicians for each diagnostic test is depicted (i.e., 100% for blood count and DAT; only 40% for anti-platelets and anti-neutrophils; 77% for bone marrow evaluation). Most clinicians reported that ES requires a specific approach compared to isolated autoimmune cytopenias, due to either a more complex pathogenesis and a higher risk of relapse and thrombotic and infectious complications. The heterogeneity of treatment choices among different physicians suggests the need for broader harmonization.

Clinical outcomes of ruxolitinib treatment in 595 intermediate-1 risk patients with myelofibrosis: The RUX-MF Real-World Study.

BACKGROUND: Ruxolitinib (RUX) is a JAK1/2 inhibitor approved for the therapy of myelofibrosis (MF) based on clinical trials including only intermediate2-high risk (INT2/HIGH) patients. However, RUX is commonly used in intermediate-1 (INT1) patients, with scarce information on responses and outcome. METHODS: The authors investigated the benefit of RUX in 1055 MF patients, included in the "RUX-MF" retrospective study. RESULTS: At baseline (BL), 595 (56.2%) patients were at INT1-risk according to DIPSS (PMF) or MYSEC-PM (SMF). The spleen was palpable at <5 cm, between 5 and 10 cm, and >10 cm below costal margin in 5.9%, 47.4%, and 39.7% of patients, respectively; 300 (54.1%) were highly symptomatic (total symptom score ≥20). High-molecular-risk (HMR) mutations (IDH1/2, ASXL-1, SRSF2, EZH2, U2AF1Q157) were detected in 77/167 patients. A total of 101 (19.2%) patients had ≥1 cytopenia (Hb < 10 g/dL: n.36; PLT <100 x 109/L: n = 43; white blood cells <4 x 109/L: n = 40). After 6 months on RUX, IWG-MRT-defined spleen and symptoms response rates were 26.8% and 67.9%, respectively. In univariate analysis, predictors of SR at 6 months were no HMR mutations odds ratio [OR], 2.0, p = .05], no cytopenia (OR, 2.10; p = .01), and blasts <1% (OR, 1.91; p = .01). In multivariate analysis, absence of HMR maintained a significant association (OR, 2.1 [1.12-3.76]; p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: In INT1 patients, responses were more frequent and durable, whereas toxicity rates were lower compared to INT2/high-risk patients. Presence of HMR mutations, cytopenia, and peripheral blasts identified less-responsive INT1 patients, who may benefit for alternative therapeutic strategies.

Incidence of blast phase in myelofibrosis patients according to anemia severity at ruxolitinib start and during therapy.

BACKGROUND: Anemia is frequently present in patients with myelofibrosis (MF), and it may be exacerbated by treatment with the JAK2-inhibitor ruxolitinib (RUX). Recently, a relevant blast phase (BP) incidence has been reported in anemic MF patients unexposed to RUX. METHODS: The authors investigated the incidence of BP in 886 RUX-treated MF patients, included in the "RUX-MF" retrospective study. RESULTS: The BP incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 3.74 per 100 patient-years (3.74 %p-y). At therapy start, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3-4 anemia (hemoglobin [Hb] <8 g/dL) and severe sex/severity-adjusted anemia (Hb <8/<9 g/dL in women/men) were present in 22.5% and 25% patients, respectively. IRR of BP was 2.34 in patients with no baseline anemia and reached respectively 4.22, 4.89, and 4.93 %p-y in patients with grade 1, 2, and 3-4 anemia. Considering the sex/severity-adjusted Hb thresholds, IRR of BP was 2.85, 4.97, and 4.89 %p-y in patients with mild/no anemia, moderate, and severe anemia. Transfusion-dependent patients had the highest IRR (5.03 %p-y). Progression-free survival at 5 years was 70%, 52%, 43%, and 27% in patients with no, grade 1, 2, and 3-4 anemia, respectively (p < .001). At 6 months, 260 of 289 patients with no baseline anemia were receiving ruxolitinib, and 9.2% had developed a grade 3-4 anemia. By 6-month landmark analysis, BP-free survival was significantly worse in patients acquiring grade 3-4 anemia (69.3% vs. 88.1% at 5 years, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that anemia correlates with an increased risk of evolution into BP, both when present at baseline and when acquired during RUX monotherapy. Innovative anemia therapies and disease-modifying agents are warranted in these patients.

Cancer Treatment Closer to the Patient Reduces Travel Burden, Time Toxicity, and Improves Patient Satisfaction, Results of 546 Consecutive Patients in a Northern Italian District.

Background and Objectives: The distance to cancer facilities may cause disparities by creating barriers to oncologic diagnosis and treatment, and travel burden may cause time and financial toxicity. Materials and Methods: To relieve travel burden, a program to deliver oncologic treatment closer to the patient was initiated in the district of Piacenza (Northern Italy) several years ago. The oncologic activities are performed by oncologists and by nurses who travel from the oncologic ward of the city hospital to territorial centres to provide cancer patient management. This model is called Territorial Oncology Care (TOC): patients are managed near their home, in three territorial hospitals and in a health centre, named "Casa della Salute" (CDS). A retrospective study was performed and the records of patients with cancer managed in the TOC program were analysed. The primary endpoints were the km and time saved, the secondary endpoints: reduction of caregiver need for transport and patient satisfaction. Results: 546 cancer patients managed in the TOC program from 2 January 2021 to 30 June 2022 were included in this study. Primary endpoints: median km to reach the city hospital: 26 (range 11-79 km) median time: 44 min (range 32-116); median km to reach the territorial clinicians in the TOC program: 7 (range 1-35 km), median time: 16 minutes (range 6-54), p < 0.001. Secondary endpoints: 64.8% of patients who needed a caregiver for the city hospital could travel alone in the TOC program and 99.63% of patients were satisfied. Conclusions: The results of this retrospective study highlight the possibility of treating cancer patients near their residence, reducing travel burden and saving time.

A Prognostic Model to Predict Ruxolitinib Discontinuation and Death in Patients with Myelofibrosis.

Most patients with myelofibrosis (MF) discontinue ruxolitinib (JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor) in the first 5 years of therapy due to therapy failure. As the therapeutic possibilities of MF are expanding, it is critical to identify patients predisposed to early ruxolitinib monotherapy failure and worse outcomes. We investigated predictors of early ruxolitinib discontinuation and death on therapy in 889 patients included in the "RUX-MF" retrospective study. Overall, 172 patients were alive on ruxolitinib after ≥5 years (long-term ruxolitinib, LTR), 115 patients were alive but off ruxolitinib after ≥5 yrs (short-term RUX, STR), and 123 patients died while on ruxolitinib after <5 yrs (early death on ruxolitinib, EDR). The cumulative incidence of the blast phase was similar in LTR and STR patients (p = 0.08). Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in LTR pts (p = 0.002). In multivariate analysis, PLT < 100 × 109/L, Hb < 10 g/dL, primary MF, absence of spleen response at 3 months and ruxolitinib starting dose <10 mg BID were associated with higher probability of STR. Assigning one point to each significant variable, a prognostic model for STR (STR-PM) was built, and three groups were identified: low (score 0-1), intermediate (score 2), and high risk (score ≥ 3). The STR-PM may identify patients at higher risk of failure with ruxolitinib monotherapy who should be considered for alternative frontline strategies.

Ruxolitinib in cytopenic myelofibrosis: Response, toxicity, drug discontinuation, and outcome.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cytopenic myelofibrosis (MF) have more limited therapeutic options and poorer prognoses compared with patients with the myeloproliferative phenotype. AIMS AND METHODS: Prognostic correlates of cytopenic phenotype were explored in 886 ruxolitinib-treated patients with primary/secondary MF (PMF/SMF) included in the RUX-MF retrospective study. Cytopenia was defined as: leukocyte count <4 × 109 /L and/or hemoglobin <11/<10 g/dL (males/females) and/or platelets <100 × 109 /L. RESULTS: Overall, 407 (45.9%) patients had a cytopenic MF, including 249 (52.4%) with PMF. In multivariable analysis, high molecular risk mutations (p = .04), intermediate 2/high Dynamic International Prognostic Score System (p < .001) and intermediate 2/high Myelofibrosis Secondary to Polycythemia Vera and Essential Thrombocythemia Prognostic Model (p < .001) remained associated with cytopenic MF in the overall cohort, PMF, and SMF, respectively. Patients with cytopenia received lower average ruxolitinib at the starting (25.2 mg/day vs. 30.2 mg/day, p < .001) and overall doses (23.6 mg/day vs. 26.8 mg/day, p < .001) and achieved lower rates of spleen (26.5% vs. 34.1%, p = .04) and symptom (59.8% vs. 68.8%, p = .008) responses at 6 months compared with patients with the proliferative phenotype. Patients with cytopenia also had higher rates of thrombocytopenia at 3 months (31.1% vs. 18.8%, p < .001) but lower rates of anemia (65.6% vs. 57.7%, p = .02 at 3 months and 56.6% vs. 23.9% at 6 months, p < .001). After competing risk analysis, the cumulative incidence of ruxolitinib discontinuation at 5 years was 57% and 38% in patients with cytopenia and the proliferative phenotype (p < .001), whereas cumulative incidence of leukemic transformation was similar (p = .06). In Cox regression analysis adjusted for Dynamic International Prognostic Score System score, survival was significantly shorter in patients with cytopenia (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Cytopenic MF has a lower probability of therapeutic success with ruxolitinib as monotherapy and worse outcome. These patients should be considered for alternative therapeutic strategies.

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.

[Territorial-based management of patients with cancer on active treatment following the Piacenza (north Italy) Model. Results of 4 consecutive years.] / Le cure oncologiche ed ematologiche sul territorio secondo il modello dell'ASL di Piacenza. Rendiconto di 4 anni consecutivi.

INTRODUCTION: The natural history of cancer has radically changed in the last decade. The burden of travel from patient's residence to health care providers is an important issue that can influence access to diagnosis and treatment of cancer; however this issue is quite neglect by the medical community and by the national health system. In addition, community care in the oncology field is actually debated. METHODS: In the district of Piacenza an innovative model to deliver onco-hematologic treatment near the residence of patients was initiated some years ago. The oncologic and hematologic treatments are delivered by specialized nurses under supervision of medical oncologists or hematologists at the 3 community hospital and at 1 house of health in the district of Piacenza. We conducted a retrospective study involving 1,339 cancer patients (CPs) managed and treated near their residence, CPs were on active medical treatment at the oncology and hematology department Azienda sanitaria (ASL) of Piacenza (North Italy). The electronic data base of the antiblastic drug unit (UFA) of the ASL Piacenza, provided: the number of patients treated each year, number of treatments and the accesses to the territorial medical structure each year. The kms saved to reach the nearest territorial structures instead of the oncologic unit of the city hospital, were registered and recorded. RESULTS: During a 4 years period, from January 2017 to December 2020, 1,339 CPs were treated near their residence, 278 in the year 2017, 347 in 2018, 354 in 2019 and 360 in 2020. The total accesses for treatment in 4 years were 10,003: 2,214 in the year 2017, 2,652 in 2018, 2,524 in 2019 and 2,613 in 2020. The mean distance saved for each patient was 937 kms in the year 2017, 891 in 2018, 879 in 2019, 920 in 2020, totally a mean of 3,627 kms in the 4 years. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: We believe that the results of our retrospective study highlight the possibility of treating cancer patients in territorial structures near their residence, with advantages for patients themselves, their caregivers and for the entire community.

Characteristics and outcomes of five patients with COVID-19 and hematological malignancies.

Patients with hematological cancer are at major risk of developing infectious complication. The prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in these patients is challenging. This experience, with the limitation of a small number of patients, highlights that early treatment of COVID-19 can overcome the infection, also in hematological patients.

Ruxolitinib rechallenge in resistant or intolerant patients with myelofibrosis: Frequency, therapeutic effects, and impact on outcome.

BACKGROUND: After ruxolitinib discontinuation, the outcome of patients with myelofibrosis (MF) is poor with scarce therapeutic possibilities. METHODS: The authors performed a subanalysis of an observational, retrospective study (RUX-MF) that included 703 MF patients treated with ruxolitinib to investigate 1) the frequency and reasons for ruxolitinib rechallenge, 2) its therapeutic effects, and 3) its impact on overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients (31.2%) discontinued ruxolitinib for ≥14 days and survived for ≥30 days. In 60 patients (27.4%), ruxolitinib was rechallenged for ≥14 days (RUX-again patients), whereas 159 patients (72.6%) discontinued it permanently (RUX-stop patients). The baseline characteristics of the 2 cohorts were comparable, but discontinuation due to a lack/loss of spleen response was lower in RUX-again patients (P = .004). In comparison with the disease status at the first ruxolitinib stop, at its restart, there was a significant increase in patients with large splenomegaly (P < .001) and a high Total Symptom Score (TSS; P < .001). During the rechallenge, 44.6% and 48.3% of the patients had spleen and symptom improvements, respectively, with a significant increase in the number of patients with a TSS reduction (P = .01). Although the use of a ruxolitinib dose > 10 mg twice daily predicted better spleen (P = .05) and symptom improvements (P = .02), the reasons for/duration of ruxolitinib discontinuation and the use of other therapies before rechallenge were not associated with rechallenge efficacy. At 1 and 2 years, 33.3% and 48.3% of RUX-again patients, respectively, had permanently discontinued ruxolitinib. The median overall survival was 27.9 months, and it was significantly longer for RUX-again patients (P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Ruxolitinib rechallenge was mainly used in intolerant patients; there were clinical improvements and a possible survival advantage in many cases, but there was a substantial rate of permanent discontinuation. Ruxolitinib rechallenge should be balanced against newer therapeutic possibilities.

Second primary malignancy in myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib.

Ruxolitinib (RUX), the first JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor approved for myelofibrosis (MF) therapy, has recently been associated with the occurrence of second primary malignancies (SPMs), mainly lymphomas and non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSCs). We analyzed the incidence, risk factors and outcome of SPMs in 700 MF patients treated with RUX in a real-world context. Median follow-up from starting RUX was 2·9 years. Overall, 80 (11·4%) patients developed 87 SPMs after RUX start. NMSCs were the most common SPMs (50·6% of the cases). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that male sex [hazard ratio (HR): 2·37, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 1·22-4·60, P = 0·01] and thrombocytosis> 400 × 109 /l at RUX start (HR:1·98, 95%CI: 1·10-4·60, P = 0·02) were associated with increased risk for SPMs. Risk factors for NMSC alone were male sex (HR: 3·14, 95%CI: 1·24-7·92, P = 0·02) and duration of hydroxycarbamide and RUX therapy > 5 years (HR: 3·20, 95%CI: 1·17-8·75, P = 0·02 and HR: 2·93, 95%CI: 1·39-6·17, P = 0·005 respectively). In SPMs excluding NMSCs, male sex (HR: 2·41, 95%CI: 1·11-5·25, P = 0·03), platelet > 400 × 109 /l (HR: 3·30, 95%CI: 1·67-6·50, P = 0·001) and previous arterial thromboses (HR: 3·47, 95%CI: 1·48-8·14, P = 0·004) were shown to be associated with higher risk of SPMs. While it is reassuring that no aggressive lymphoma was documented, active skin surveillance is recommended in all patients and particularly after prolonged hydroxycaramide therapy; oncological screening should be triggered by thrombocytosis and arterial thrombosis, particularly in males.

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.

Life after ruxolitinib: Reasons for discontinuation, impact of disease phase, and outcomes in 218 patients with myelofibrosis.

BACKGROUND: After discontinuing ruxolitinib, the outcome of patients with myelofibrosis reportedly has been poor. The authors investigated whether disease characteristics before the receipt of ruxolitinib may predict drug discontinuation in patients with myelofibrosis and whether reasons for drug discontinuation, disease phase at discontinuation, and salvage therapies may influence the outcome. METHODS: A centralized electronic clinical database was created in 20 European hematology centers, including clinical and laboratory data for 524 patients who received ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis. RESULTS: At 3 years, 40.8% of patients had stopped ruxolitinib. Baseline predictors of drug discontinuation were: intermediate-2-risk/high-risk category (Dynamic International Prognostic Score System), a platelet count <100 ×109 per liter, transfusion dependency, and unfavorable karyotype. At last contact, 268 patients (51.1%) had discontinued therapy, and the median drug exposure was 17.5 months. Fifty patients (18.7%) died while taking ruxolitinib. The reasons for discontinuation in the remaining 218 patients were the lack (22.9%) or loss (11.9%) of a spleen response, ruxolitinib-related adverse events (27.5%), progression to blast phase (23.4%), ruxolitinib-unrelated adverse events (9.2%), and allogeneic transplantation during response (5.1%). The median survival after ruxolitinib was 13.2 months and was significantly better in the 167 patients who discontinued ruxolitinib in chronic phase (27.5 vs 3.9 months for those who discontinued in blast phase; P < .001). No survival differences were observed among patients who discontinued ruxolitinib in chronic phase because of lack of response, loss of response, or ruxolitinib-related adverse events. The use of investigational agents and/or ruxolitinib rechallenge were associated with improved outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The survival of patients with myelofibrosis after discontinuation of ruxolitinib is poor, particularly for those who discontinue in blast phase. Salvage therapies can improve outcome, emphasizing the need for novel therapies.

Impact of 2016 WHO diagnosis of early and overt primary myelofibrosis on presentation and outcome of 232 patients treated with ruxolitinib.

The 2016 WHO criteria identified early primary myelofibrosis (PMF) as an individual entity with milder clinical features and better outcome compared with overt PMF. Here, we compared early and overt PMF patients treated with ruxolitinib in terms of baseline clinical/laboratory characteristics, response, and toxicity to treatment. We observed that early-PMF patients achieve better and more stable spleen and symptoms responses, with significantly lower rates of hematological toxicities. No differences in overall and leukemia-free survival were detected between the two cohorts. The application of 2016 WHO criteria is crucial to identify those PMF patients who deserve a stricter monitoring during treatment.

Impact of comorbidities and body mass index in patients with myelofibrosis treated with ruxolitinib.

Comorbidities defined by the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and body mass index (BMI) are significantly associated with outcome in patients who receive continuous treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We evaluated the impact of CCI and BMI on responses, drug-related toxicities, and outcome in a cohort of 402 patients with myelofibrosis (MF) treated with ruxolitinib in 23 European Hematology Centers. Comorbidities were evaluable in all 402 patients. A higher (≥ 3) CCI did not correlate with a lower spleen reduction at any time (p = 0.68) or symptoms' response (p = 0.11), but influenced the onset of anemia during the first 3 months of treatment and later (p = 0.02 and p = 0.03, respectively) in patients without anemia baseline. BMI was evaluable in 380 patients and did not correlate with differences in spleen and symptoms response (p = 0.57 and p = 0.49, respectively). A higher CCI and a lower BMI correlated also with a reduced overall survival (p < 0.001 and p = 0.02, respectively). The achievement of a spleen response at 6 months could counterbalance the negative impact of comorbidities, while patients who were underweight when starting ruxolitinib and did not achieve a spleen response at 6 months were projected to the worse outcome. In MF patients treated with ruxolitinib, BMI and comorbidities did not influence the achievement of spleen/symptom responses, but they contributed to the early identification of patients who deserve a strict monitoring during treatment.

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⁎.

Recently, the myelofibrosis secondary to PV and ET prognostic model (MYSEC-PM) was introduced to assess prognosis in myelofibrosis (MF) secondary to polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia (post-PV and post-ET MF), replacing the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and/or Dynamic IPSS (DIPSS) that was applied for primary MF (PMF). In a cohort of 421 ruxolitinib (RUX)-treated patients (post-PV and post-ET MF: 44.2%), we evaluated the following: (1) disease phenotype, responses, and toxicity to RUX; and (2) performance of the MYSEC-PM in post-PV or post-ET MF. While the IPSS failed to correctly stratify post-PV or post-ET MF patients at diagnosis, the MYSEC-PM identified 4 risk categories projected at significantly different survival probability (P < .001). Additionally, the MYSEC-PM maintained a prognostic value in post-PV and post-ET MF also when used over time, at RUX start. Notably, the MYSEC-PM reclassified 41.8% and 13.6% of patients into a lower and higher risk category, respectively. Finally, patients at intermediate-1 risk had significantly higher spleen responses and lower hematological toxicities compared to higher risk patients. Compared to PMF, post-PV and post-ET MF presented a more hyperproliferative disease, with higher leukocyte and/or platelet count and hemoglobin levels both at diagnosis and at RUX start. Despite comparable response rates, post-PV and post-ET MF had lower rate of RUX-induced anemia and thrombocytopenia at 3 and 6 months. The study validates MYSEC-PM in post-PV and post-ET MF prognostication. Post-PV or post-ET MF represents a separate entity compared to PMF in terms of clinical manifestations and toxicity to RUX.