Bone marrow fibrosis in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia is associated with increased megakaryopoiesis, splenomegaly and with a shorter median time to disease progression.

Bone marrow (BM) fibrosis is an adverse prognostic marker in several myeloid neoplasms, particularly in myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with fibrosis; however, its significance in chronic myelomonoctyic leukemia (CMML) has not been evaluated. We performed a retrospective analysis to investigate the prognostic and clinicopathological features of CMML with and without BM fibrosis. The study included specimens from a total of 83 untreated CMML patients from 2 large institutions. Patients with any amount of BM fibrosis (MF-1 or higher; MF1+) had significantly shorter progression-free survival (MF1+, 28.3 months vs MF0, not reached; p = 0.001, log rank test), splenomegaly (p = 0.016), and increased BM megakaryocytes (p = 0.04) compared to patients without BM fibrosis (MF-0). No association was observed between fibrosis and peripheral blood parameters, presence of JAK2 V617F mutation, BM blasts, or overall survival. Our study demonstrates the importance of assessing BM fibrosis in CMML. Similar to MDS, the presence of BM fibrosis may identify a distinct subgroup of CMML patients (CMML-F) with a more aggressive clinical course.

Nuclear factor-erythroid 2, nerve growth factor receptor, and CD34-microvessel density are differentially expressed in primary myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and essential thrombocythemia.

Because of the presence of various overlapping findings, the discrimination of polycythemia vera (PV) from prefibrotic/fibrotic primary myelofibrosis (PF/F-PMF) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) may be challenging, particularly in suboptimal bone marrow biopsy specimens. In this study, we assessed whether differences in the expression of nuclear factor-erythroid 2 (NF-E2), nerve growth factor receptor (NGFR; CD271), CD34, CD68, p53, CD3, CD20, and CD138 by immunohistochemistry could be useful in separating among them. Higher frequencies of nuclear positive erythroblasts with NF-E2 were observed in ET and PV cases (50% ± 13.3% and 41.5% ± 9.4%, respectively) when compared with both PF-PMF (21% ± 11.7%) and F-PMF (28.5% ± 10.8%). We found that with a cutoff level of at least 30% nuclear staining for NF-E2 in erythroblasts, we could reliably exclude the possibility of PMF. Conversely, NGFR+ stromal cells per high-power field (HPF) was significantly increased in F-PMF (53.5 ± 19.1/HPF) and PF-PMF (13.5 ± 3.8/HPF) compared with ET (4.4 ± 2.2/HPF) and PV (6.6 ± 3.3/HPF). Similarly, differences in CD34-microvessel density was remarkable in F-PMF and PF-PMF cases in comparison with PV and ET (49.9 ± 12.1/HPF, 29.3 ± 12.4/HPF, 13.7 ± 4.6/HPF, and 11.9 ± 5.1/HPF, respectively). Thus, the assessment of NF-E2 and NGFR expression and the evaluation of CD34-microvessel density may provide additional support in reaching a correct diagnosis in these cases of myeloproliferative neoplasms.

Morphologic and cytogenetic differences between post-polycythemic myelofibrosis and primary myelofibrosis in fibrotic stage.

Polycythemia vera and primary myelofibrosis share a propensity to progress toward a myelofibrotic late stage with overlapping clinical characteristics. Bone marrow features potentially useful for distinguishing the two entities have not been thoroughly investigated and, currently, clinical history is used for purposes of disease classification. This study describes in detail the morphologic features of 23 cases of post-polycythemic myelofibrosis and 15 cases of primary myelofibrosis with a similar degree of fibrosis, from two large medical centers. Cytogenetic results were available in 19 post-polycythemic myelofibrosis and in 13 primary myelofibrosis cases. JAK2 status and follow-up information was available in all cases. Cellularity was increased in both groups, but more so in post-polycythemic myelofibrosis than in primary myelofibrosis. In post-polycythemic myelofibrosis, most megakaryocytes retained polycythemia vera-like features including normally folded and/or hyperlobulated nuclei devoid of severe maturation defects; only in a few cases were rare tight clusters present. In primary myelofibrosis cases, megakaryocytes showed pronounced anomalies, including increased nuclear:cytoplasmic ratio, abnormal clumping of chromatin and frequent tight clustering. No differences in blast number (<1%) or in the myeloid:erythroid ratio were observed. Post-polycythemic myelofibrosis showed a higher degree of karyotypic alterations and higher percentage of cases with complex karyotype and/or two or more clones. Chromosome 1 defects were common in post-polycythemic myelofibrosis, whereas isolated del(20q) was the most common alteration in primary myelofibrosis. No survival differences were noted between the two groups. Post-polycythemic myelofibrosis cases retain a distinct megakaryocytic morphology that represents a useful clue for differential diagnosis. In addition, they more often display a complex karyotype than do primary myelofibrosis cases. These results suggest that myelofibrosis in polycythemia vera represents a form of progression characterized by profound genetic damage whereas in primary myelofibrosis it is an intrinsic part of the phenotypic manifestation of the disease, not necessarily associated with adverse cytogenetics.