Comparing the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients with Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System low-, intermediate-1-, intermediate-2-, and high-risk myelofibrosis in JUMP, a Phase 3b, expanded-access study.

Ruxolitinib, a potent Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, has demonstrated durable improvements in patients with myelofibrosis. In this analysis of the Phase 3b JUMP study, which included patients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of primary or secondary myelofibrosis, we assessed the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients stratified by Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) risk categories. Baseline characteristic data were available to assess DIPSS status for 1844 of the 2233 enrolled patients; 60, 835, 755, and 194 in the low-, intermediate (Int)-1-, Int-2-, and high-risk groups, respectively. Ruxolitinib was generally well tolerated across all risk groups, with an adverse-event (AE) profile consistent with previous reports. The most common hematologic AEs were thrombocytopenia and anemia, with highest rates of Grade ≥3 events in high-risk patients. Approximately, 73% of patients experienced ≥50% reductions in palpable spleen length at any point in the ≤24-month treatment period, with highest rates in lower-risk categories (low, 82.1%; Int-1, 79.3%; Int-2, 67.1%; high risk, 61.6%). Median time to spleen length reduction was 5.1 weeks and was shortest in lower-risk patients. Across measures, 40%-57% of patients showed clinically meaningful symptom improvements, which were observed from 4 weeks after treatment initiation and maintained throughout the study. Overall survival (OS) was 92% at Week 72 and 75% at Week 240 (4.6 years). Median OS was longer for Int-2-risk than high-risk patients (253.6 vs. 147.3 weeks), but not evaluable in low-/Int-1-risk patients. By Week 240, progression-free survival (PFS) and leukemia-free survival (LFS) rates were higher in lower-risk patients (PFS: low, 90%; Int-1, 82%; Int-2, 46%; high risk, 15%; LFS: low, 92%; Int-1, 86%; Int-2, 58%; high risk, 19%). Clinical benefit was seen across risk groups, with more rapid improvements in lower risk patients. Overall, this analysis indicates that ruxolitinib benefits lower-risk DIPSS patients in addition to higher risk.

Genomic characterization and prognostication applied to a Brazilian cohort of patients with myelofibrosis.

Genomic characterization of patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) may lead to better diagnostic classification, prognostic assessment, and treatment decisions. These goals are particularly important in myelofibrosis (MF). We performed target Next Generation Sequencing for a panel of 255 genes and Chromosome Microarray Analysis (CMA) in 27 patients with MF. Patients were classified according to genomic findings and we compared the performance of a personalized prognostication system with IPSS, MIPSS70 and MIPSS70 + v2. Twenty-six patients presented mutations: 11.1% had single driver mutations in either JAK2, CALR or MPL; 85.2% had mutations in non-restricted genes (median: 2 per patient). CMA was abnormal in 91.7% of the 24 cases with available data. Copy-Number-Neutral Loss-of-Heterozygosity was the most common finding (66.7%). Del13q was the most frequent copy number variation, and we could define a 2.4 Mb minimally affected region encompassing RB1, SUCLA2 and CLLS2 loci. The largest genomic subgroup consisted of patients with mutations in genes involved with chromatin organization and splicing control (40.7%) and the personalized system showed better concordance and accuracy than the other prognostic systems. Comprehensive genomic characterization reveals the striking genetic complexity of MF and, when combined with clinical data, led, in our cohort, to better prognostication performance.

Genomic characterization in triple-negative primary myelofibrosis and other myeloid neoplasms with bone marrow fibrosis.

Triple-negative primary myelofibrosis (TN-PMF) and other myeloid neoplasms with associated bone marrow fibrosis such as the myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS-F) or the myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MDS/MPN-F) are rare entities, often difficult to distinguish from each other. Thirty-four patients previously diagnosed with TN-PMF (n = 14), MDS-F (n = 18), or MDS/MPN-F (n = 2) were included in the present study. After central revision of the bone marrow histology, diagnoses according to the 2016-WHO classification were TN-PMF (n = 6), MDS-F (n = 19), and MDS/MPN-F (n = 9), with TN-PMF genotype representing only 4% of a cohort of 141 molecularly annotated PMF. Genomic classification according to next-generation sequencing and cytogenetic study was performed in 28 cases. Median number of mutations was 4 (range 1-7) in cases with TP53 disruption/aneuploidy or with chromatin-spliceosome mutations versus 1 mutation (range 0-2) in other molecular subgroups (p < 0.0001). The number of mutations and the molecular classification were better than PMF and MDS conventional scoring systems to predict survival and progression to acute leukemia. In conclusion, TN-PMF is an uncommon entity when the 2016 WHO criteria are strictly applied. Genomic classification may help in the prognostic assessment of patients with myeloid neoplasms with bone marrow fibrosis.

What is pre-fibrotic myelofibrosis and how should it be managed in 2018?

The 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification for myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) divided myelofibrosis (MF) into pre-fibrotic (pre-MF) and overt-MF categories. This new classification, particularly the entity pre-MF, has been a subject of discussion between experts. Important questions have been raised in recent years, such as the need for bone marrow trephine for diagnosis; how this is interpreted and the weighting given to it in assigning a diagnosis; determination of prognosis for pre-MF patients; including which scoring system to use and, ultimately, an evidence-based management plan for this group of patients. Many pre-MF patients present as young adults, with thrombocytosis, elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels and increased bone marrow fibrosis (i.e. ≥ grade 1). Current management strategies differ in view of age, comorbidities and bone marrow features and the opinion of the managing clinicians. Prognostic scoring systems have some limitations regarding this entity, and at the present time there is limited information about the overall survival and incidence of progression to overt-MF and acute leukaemia for pre-MF. In this clinically focussed article, we review the main characteristics of this new disease category in view of the current published literature and illustrate our discussion with some real patient cases. Lastly, we propose a management strategy for patients to whom this diagnostic label is applied.

Distinguishing autoimmune myelofibrosis from primary myelofibrosis.

Bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) is a histologic finding in a wide range of diseases, including malignancies, endocrine disorders, autoimmune diseases, and infections. Autoimmune myelofibrosis (AIMF) is an uncommon etiology of BMF; it can be secondary to a defined autoimmune disease, or it can be primary in the absence of a clinically diagnosed autoimmune disease but the presence of serologic evidence of autoantibodies. Distinguishing between primary myelofibrosis (PMF) and non-neoplastic AIMF is of the utmost importance because the prognosis and therapeutic options are different. This distinction, however, can be complicated by overlapping findings in the 2 disease entities. Here, using the case of a patient with BMF in the setting of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and autoimmune hemolytic anemia, we present a systematic approach to distinguishing between PMF and AIMF.

Primary myelofibrosis: 2019 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification and management.

DISEASE OVERVIEW: Primary myelofibrosis (PMF) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) characterized by stem cell-derived clonal myeloproliferation that is often but not always accompanied by JAK2, CALR, or MPL mutations; additional disease features include bone marrow stromal reaction including reticulin fibrosis, abnormal cytokine expression, anemia, hepatosplenomegaly, extramedullary hematopoiesis (EMH), constitutional symptoms, cachexia, leukemic progression, and shortened survival. DIAGNOSIS: Diagnosis of PMF is based on bone marrow morphology. Presence of JAK2, CALR, or MPL mutation, expected in ∼ 90% of the patients, is supportive but not essential for diagnosis. The revised 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification system distinguishes "prefibrotic" from "overtly fibrotic" PMF; the former might mimic ET in its presentation and it is prognostically relevant to distinguish the two. RISK STRATIFICATION: Two new prognostic systems for PMF have recently been introduced: GIPSS (genetically inspired prognostic scoring system) and MIPSS70+ version 2.0 (mutation- and karyotype-enhanced international prognostic scoring system). GIPSS is based exclusively on mutations and karyotype. MIPSS70+ version 2.0 utilizes both genetic and clinical risk factors. GIPSS features four and MIPSS70+ version 2.0 five risk categories. MIPSS70+ version 2.0 requires an online score calculator (http://www.mipss70score.it) while GIPPS offers a lower complexity prognostic tool. RISK-ADAPTED THERAPY: Observation alone is advised for MIPSS70+ version 2.0 "low" and "very low" risk disease (estimated 10-year survival 56%-92%); allogeneic stem cell transplant is the preferred treatment of choice for "very high" and "high" risk disease (estimated 10-year survival 0-13%); treatment-requiring patients with intermediate-risk disease (estimated 10-year survival 30%) are best served by participating in clinical trials. All other treatment approaches, including the use of JAK2 inhibitors, are mostly palliative and should not be used in the absence of clear treatment indications. Conventional treatment for anemia includes androgens, prednisone, thalidomide and danazol, for symptomatic splenomegaly hydroxyurea and ruxolitinib and for constitutional symptoms ruxolitinib. Splenectomy is considered for drug-refractory splenomegaly and involved field radiotherapy for nonhepatosplenic EMH and extremity bone pain.

Early/prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis in patients who were initially diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia.

A new entity, namely early/prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis (PMF), was introduced as a subtype of PMF in the 2016 revised World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). It was diagnosed based on histopathological features of bone marrow (BM) biopsy specimens together with clinical parameters [leukocytosis, anemia, elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) values, and splenomegaly]. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of early/prefibrotic PMF in patients who were previously diagnosed with ET, and to compare clinical features at diagnosis and outcomes between early/prefibrotic PMF and essential thrombocythemia (ET) patients. BM biopsy samples obtained at the time of ET diagnosis were available in 42 patients. Sample reevaluation according to the 2016 revised WHO criteria revealed that early/prefibrotic PMF accounted for 14% of patients who were previously diagnosed with ET, which was comparable to the rates in previous reports. Compared to patients with ET, patients with early/prefibrotic PMF had higher LDH values and higher frequencies of splenomegaly. Overall, myelofibrosis-free and acute myeloid leukemia-free survivals were comparable between the 2 groups. Accurate diagnosis is required to clarify the clinical features of Japanese ET patients.

Diagnosis and management of prefibrotic myelofibrosis.

INTRODUCTION: The 2016 WHO classification comprises two stages of primary myelofibrosis (PMF): early/prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis (pre-PMF) and overt fibrotic PMF (overt PMF). Diagnostic criteria rely on bone marrow morphology, fibrosis grade (0-1 in pre-PMF, 2-3 in overt PMF), and clinical features (leukoerythroblastosis, anemia, leucocytosis, increased lactate dehydrogenase, and palpable splenomegaly). An accurate differentiation from essential thrombocythemia (ET) is pivotal because the two entities show different clinical presentation and outcome, in terms of survival, leukemic evolution, and rates of progression to overt myelofibrosis. Areas covered: The current review provides an overview on how to diagnose and stratify patients with pre-PMF, taking into account their definite and peculiar risk of vascular event, which is often neglected, and their milder disease course, compared with overt PMF, with the aim of improving and individualizing their counseling and management. Expert commentary: Pre-PMF is a new entity characterized by a unique combination of both a thrombo-hemorrhagic risk (that brings it closer to PV and ET) and a definite risk of disease evolution (that places pre-PMF somewhat closer to the overt PMF variant).

Effect of CALR and JAK2 mutations on the clinical and hematological phenotypes of the disease in patients with myelofibrosis - long-term experience from a single center.

Primary myelofibrosis (PMF) is a chronic clonal myeloid disorder. Together with essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV), it belongs to a group of Philadelphia chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms. An integral part of laboratory tests carried out in this disease group is detecting the presence of mutations in the Janus kinase 2 gene at position 617 (JAK2 V617F) and in the gene encoding for the receptor for thrombopoietin (myeloproliferative leukemia virus oncogene, MPL) found in approximately 60% of PMF patients. The discovery of mutations affecting exon 9 of the calreticulin (CALR) gene was of great benefit to the diagnosis of the diseases in JAK2 V617F and MPL unmutated cases. This is a study of the effect of a mutation in the CALR gene on the clinical course in patients with primary, post-ET and post-PV myelofibrosis. Analysis of 66 patients (54.5% JAK2 V617F; 34.8% CALR; 6.1% MPL; 3.0% triple negative; 1.5% coincidence of CALR and JAK2 V617F) confirmed a different phenotype of the disease in CALR-mutated patients as compared with CALR-unmutated individuals. Those with CALR mutation were significantly younger and had borderline higher platelet counts, less pronounced splenomegaly and less frequent B symptoms at diagnosis. The study suggests that the driver mutation types define variations in the biological basis, clinical manifestations and course of the disease. The presence of CALR mutation has been shown to be an independent prognostic favorable factor. Careful risk stratification of these patients is of great importance to adequate therapeutic decision-making and aids in selecting high-risk patients eligible  for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation which continues to be the only treatment modality for myelofibrosis having curative potential.

The evolution and clinical relevance of prognostic classification systems in myelofibrosis.

Primary myelofibrosis, the most aggressive of the classic Philadelphia chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), is a clonal disorder characterized by often debilitating constitutional symptoms and splenomegaly, bone marrow fibrosis and resultant cytopenias, extramedullary hematopoiesis, risk of leukemic transformation, and shortened survival. Post-polycythemia vera and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis represent similar entities, although some differences are being recognized. Attempts to classify patients with myelofibrosis into prognostic categories have been made since the late 1980s, and these scoring systems continue to evolve as new information becomes available. Over the last decade, the molecular pathogenesis of MPNs has been elucidated considerably, and the Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is the first drug specifically approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk myelofibrosis. This article reviews the evolution of prognostic criteria in myelofibrosis, emphasizing the major systems widely in use today, as well as recently described, novel systems that incorporate emerging data regarding somatic mutations. Risk factors for thrombosis and conversion to MPN blast phase also are discussed. Finally, the practical usefulness of the current prognostic classification systems in terms of clinical decision making is discussed, particularly within the context of some of their inherent weaknesses. Cancer 2016;122:681-692. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Thrombosis in essential thrombocytemia and early/prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis: the role of the WHO histological diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Vascular events represent the most frequent complications of thrombocytemias. We aimed to evaluate their risk in the WHO histologic categories of Essential Thrombocytemia (ET) and early Primary Myelofibrosis (PMF). METHODS: From our clinical database of 283 thrombocytemic patients, we selected those with available bone marrow histology performed before any treatment, at or within 1 year from diagnosis, and reclassified the 131 cases as true ET or early PMF, with or without fibrosis, according to the WHO histological criteria. Vaso-occlusive events at diagnosis and in the follow-up were compared in the WHO-groups. RESULTS: Histologic review reclassified 61 cases as ET and 72 cases as early PMF (26 prefibrotic and 42 with grade 1 or 2 fibrosis). Compared to ET, early PMF showed a significant higher rate of thrombosis both in the past history (22% vs 8%) and at diagnosis (15.2% vs 1.6%), and an increased leukocyte count (8389 vs 7500/mmc). Venous thromboses (mainly atypical) were relatively more common in PMF than in ET. Patients with prefibrotic PMF, although younger, showed a significant higher 15-year risk of developing thrombosis (48% vs 16% in fibrotic PMF and 17% in ET). At multivariate analysis, age and WHO histology were both independent risk-factors for thrombosis during follow-up; patients >60 yr-old or with prefibrotic PMF showed a significantly higher risk at 20 years than patients <60 yr-old with ET or fibrotic PMF (47% vs 4%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Our study support the importance of WHO histologic categories in the thrombotic risk stratification of patients with thrombocytemias. VIRTUAL SLIDES: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/2020211863144412 .

WHO classification of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN): A critical update.

Although the revised World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for the diagnosis and classification of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) were defined by a panel of expert hematopathologists and clinicians, controversy has been repeatedly expressed questioning the clinical usefulness and reproducibility of these diagnostic guidelines. In particular, the distinction between essential thrombocythemia (ET), early/prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis (PMF) and initial stages of polycythemia vera (PV) is still a matter of debate. In this context, it has been argued that clinical correlations with histological features were not firmly substantiated. On the other hand, recently published data from independently performed studies have repeatedly validated the reproducibility of the WHO criteria and provided persuasive evidence that discrimination of early/prefibrotic PMF has a significant impact on the risk of myelofibrotic and leukemic transformation. However, as has been explicitly required, the WHO concept is based on the recognition of characteristic bone marrow patterns and a consensus of clinical and molecular data.

Application of five prognostic survival scores to primary myelofibrosis in 62 Brazilian patients.

Primary myelofibrosis (PM) is a Philadelphia-negative clonal hematopoietic stem cell disorder characterized by intense reactive changes of bone marrow stroma with collagen fibrosis, osteosclerosis and angiogenesis. PM usually affects elderly people, and approximately half of the patients present JAK2V617F mutation. PM clinical course varies from 1 to 30 years, evolving from asymptomatic into progressive bone marrow failure, symptomatic splenomegaly or acute leukemia in 10-20 % of cases. PM risk stratification is based on parameters predicting survival, and several attempts have been made to identify clinical and laboratory features that could predict PM patient survival. This study applied five prognostic scores: Dupriez, Cervantes, Mayo, IPSS and DIPSS-Plus in 62 Brazilians patients from three centers, and compared their relevance and clinical usefulness considering the scores' parameters, fibrosis, JAK2V617F mutation, splenomegaly, hepatomegaly and treatment. According to the Cervantes, Dupriez and Mayo scores, most patients were stratified into low-risk group. However, when IPSS and DIPSS-Plus were applied, most patients were classified into an intermediate range, being low risk in only 11 and 13 % of patients, respectively. Overall survival at 4 years was 84 %. The Cervantes score was the only one that remained significantly associated with survival in a multivariate analysis. In conclusion, the Cervantes score remains important to the prognostication of PM.

[Classification and diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia].

Although the fourth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of the diagnostic criteria for myeloproliferative neoplasms is widely accepted, the diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia has been debated. One of the controversies focuses on the provisional entity known as refractory anemia, which exhibits ringed sideroblasts associated with marked thrombocytosis (RARS-T). To date, it has not been made clear whether RARS-T is a form of ET or a separate and unique disease entity. Recent findings, which may shed light on this debate, have demonstrated that more than 60% of RARS-T patients exhibit somatic mutations of SF3B1, a gene encoding a core component of the RNA-splicing system. Another debate is focused on the role of bone marrow histopathology in the diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia. Bone marrow histopathology has been considered to be a major diagnostic criterion for essential thrombocythemia since the previous version of the WHO classification criteria was published. The histological features of bone marrow are important to distinguish essential thrombocythemia from early, prefibrotic stages of primary myelofibrosis, which frequently exhibit elevated platelet levels. The specific histological bone marrow patterns of the diseases were outlined in the fourth version of the WHO classification; however, several investigators have claimed that the criteria exhibit poor interobserver reproducibility and are not sufficiently robust to discriminate essential thrombocythemia and early-stage primary myelofibrosis. This review highlights the recent debates on the role of bone marrow histopathology in essential thrombocythemia.

The European Consensus on grading of bone marrow fibrosis allows a better prognostication of patients with primary myelofibrosis.

We investigated the relationship between the International Prognostic Scoring System of the International Working Group for Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment and the European Consensus on grading of bone marrow fibrosis (MF) in patients with primary myelofibrosis. We compared them in 196 consecutive primary myelofibrosis patients (median follow-up 45.7 months; range 7.4-159). International Prognostic Scoring System classified 42 cases as low risk, 73 as intermediate risk-1, 69 as intermediate risk-2, and 12 as high risk; European Consensus on grading of bone marrow fibrosis classified 83 cases as MF-0, 58 as MF-1, 41 as MF-2, and 14 as MF-3. By the time of the analysis, 30 patients (15.3%) had died. Overall median survival was 3.8 years (95% confidence interval: 3.3-4.3). Multivariate analysis confirmed that both scoring systems independently predicted survival, with hazard ratios similar to those provided by univariate analysis (respectively, 2.40 (95% confidence interval: 1.47-3.91) and 2.58 (95% confidence interval: 1.72-3.89) but the likelihood ratio increased from 19.6 of the International Prognostic Scoring System or 29.0 of the European Consensus on grading of bone MF to 42.3 when both measures were considered together. Analysis of the overall survival curves documented that patients classified as having the most favourable rate with both prognostic scores (ie low risk and MF-0) survive longer than those with only one favourable score (ie low risk but MF >0 or MF-0, but International Prognostic Scoring System >low risk). In contrast, those patients classified as having the most unfavourable rate for both scores (high risk and MF-3) have a shorter survival than those with only one unfavourable score (ie high risk but MF<3 or MF-3, but International Prognostic Scoring System