Prognosis in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Baseline Factors, Dynamic Risk Assessment and Novel Insights.

The introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has changed the treatment paradigm of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), leading to a dramatic improvement of the outcome of CML patients, who now have a nearly normal life expectancy and, in some selected cases, the possibility of aiming for the more ambitious goal of treatment-free remission (TFR). However, the minority of patients who fail treatment and progress from chronic phase (CP) to accelerated phase (AP) and blast phase (BP) still have a relatively poor prognosis. The identification of predictive elements enabling a prompt recognition of patients at higher risk of progression still remains among the priorities in the field of CML management. Currently, the baseline risk is assessed using simple clinical and hematologic parameters, other than evaluating the presence of additional chromosomal abnormalities (ACAs), especially those at "high-risk". Beyond the onset, a re-evaluation of the risk status is mandatory, monitoring the response to TKI treatment. Moreover, novel critical insights are emerging into the role of genomic factors, present at diagnosis or evolving on therapy. This review presents the current knowledge regarding prognostic factors in CML and their potential role for an improved risk classification and a subsequent enhancement of therapeutic decisions and disease management.

Assessment of the interlaboratory variability and robustness of JAK2V617F mutation assays: A study involving a consortium of 19 Italian laboratories.

To date, a plenty of techniques for the detection of JAK2V617F is used over different laboratories, with substantial differences in specificity and sensitivity. Therefore, to provide reliable and comparable results, the standardization of molecular techniques is mandatory.A network of 19 centers was established to 1) evaluate the inter- and intra-laboratory variability in JAK2V617F quantification, 2) identify the most robust assay for the standardization of the molecular test and 3) allow consistent interpretation of individual patient analysis results. The study was conceived in 3 different rounds, in which all centers had to blindly test DNA samples with different JAK2V617F allele burden (AB) using both quantitative and qualitative assays.The positivity of samples with an AB < 1% was not detected by qualitative assays. Conversely, laboratories performing the quantitative approach were able to determine the expected JAK2V617F AB. Quantitative results were reliable across all mutation loads with moderate variability at low AB (0.1 and 1%; CV = 0.46 and 0.77, respectively). Remarkably, all laboratories clearly distinguished between the 0.1 and 1% mutated samples.In conclusion, a qualitative approach is not sensitive enough to detect the JAK2V617F mutation, especially at low AB. On the contrary, the ipsogen JAK2 MutaQuant CE-IVD kit resulted in a high, efficient and sensitive quantification detection of all mutation loads. This study sets the basis for the standardization of molecular techniques for JAK2V617F determination, which will require the employment of approved operating procedures and the use of certificated standards, such as the recent WHO 1st International Reference Panel for Genomic JAK2V617F.