How I diagnose and treat thrombocytopenia in geriatric patients.

ABSTRACT: Thrombocytopenia in older individuals is a common but diagnostically challenging condition that has variable clinical impact to those who are affected. Diagnostic approach requires evaluation of the preexisting clinical conditions, detailed review of medications, and assessment for disorders that warrant urgent treatment. In this article, we describe a systematic approach to diagnosis of thrombocytopenia and present a schematic review for management strategies. Three clinical scenarios are presented that are relevant for their prevalence and management challenges in an older adult population. The first scenario addresses primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) and reviews different treatment options. The second one addresses complications of thrombocytopenia in management of the myelodysplastic syndrome. The last one reviews diagnostic challenges of drug-induced ITP.

Diagnostic Precision or Pitfalls: How to Apply the New Acute Myeloid Leukemia Classification Systems?

BACKGROUND: The classification of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has long been overseen by the World Health Organization (WHO) and published into a series of "Blue Books." These ledgers serve as the reference manual for AML classification and, in turn, classification-based treatment decisions. In 2022, two separate groups, each of which included hematologic oncologists, hematopathologists, and geneticists - developed and published two parallel classification systems for AML. One is from the WHO (WHO 5th edition), and a second is from an International Advisory Consortium (International Consortium Classification [ICC]). SUMMARY: Both modern classification systems originated from the revised 4th edition of the WHO Blue Books and thus share many similarities. There are never-the-less several important differences with the potential to substantially alter disease classification, access to clinical trials, and treatment decision-making. In this manuscript, we review the organization of the WHO and ICC classification systems for AML with emphasis on their similarities and differences, followed by areas in which their application to clinical scenarios may present difficulties. KEY MESSAGES: (1) The ICC and WHO 5th edition are concordant for the majority of AMLs. (2) Key differences between AML classification by the ICC and WHO 5th edition include (a) the overall framework of classification, (b) AML-defining blast threshold, definition of myelodysplasia-related AML, and (c) strategy for assigning therapy-related or germline-associated AML modifiers.

Oral cedazuridine/decitabine for MDS and CMML: a phase 2 pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic randomized crossover study.

This phase 2 study was designed to compare systemic decitabine exposure, demethylation activity, and safety in the first 2 cycles with cedazuridine 100 mg/decitabine 35 mg vs standard decitabine 20 mg/m2 IV. Adults with International Prognostic Scoring System intermediate-1/2- or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) were randomized 1:1 to receive oral cedazuridine/decitabine or IV decitabine in cycle 1, followed by crossover to the other treatment in cycle 2. All patients received oral cedazuridine/decitabine in subsequent cycles. Cedazuridine and decitabine were given initially as separate capsules in a dose-confirmation stage and then as a single fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet. Primary end points: mean decitabine systemic exposure (geometric least-squares mean [LSM]) of oral/IV 5-day area under curve from time 0 to last measurable concentration (AUClast), percentage long interspersed nuclear element 1 (LINE-1) DNA demethylation for oral cedazuridine/decitabine vs IV decitabine, and clinical response. Eighty patients were randomized and treated. Oral/IV ratios of geometric LSM 5-day AUClast (80% confidence interval) were 93.5% (82.1-106.5) and 97.6% (80.5-118.3) for the dose-confirmation and FDC stages, respectively. Differences in mean %LINE-1 demethylation between oral and IV were ≤1%. Clinical responses were observed in 48 patients (60%), including 17 (21%) with complete response. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events regardless of causality were neutropenia (46%), thrombocytopenia (38%), and febrile neutropenia (29%). Oral cedazuridine/decitabine (100/35 mg) produced similar systemic decitabine exposure, DNA demethylation, and safety vs decitabine 20 mg/m2 IV in the first 2 cycles, with similar efficacy. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02103478.

Fludarabine/Busulfan Conditioning-Based Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Myelofibrosis: Role of Ruxolitinib in Improving Survival Outcomes.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is the only curative treatment modality for primary myelofibrosis (MF) and related myeloproliferative neoplasms. Older age at diagnosis and age-related comorbidities make most patients ineligible for allo-HCT, given concerns for nonrelapse mortality (NRM). Here we report the outcomes of 37 consecutive recipients of allo-HCT for MF performed at a single center between 2009 and 2018 with a standardized institutional protocol. Most patients received ruxolitinib before HCT (n = 32), and those with splenomegaly >22 cm received pretransplantation splenic irradiation. The median age at HCT was 60 years (range, 40 to 74 years), and 68% of the cohort carried a JAK2 driver mutation. All patients received fludarabine/busulfan-based conditioning; 22 patients (59%) received a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen. All patients received peripheral blood grafts, from a matched sibling donor in 16 patients (43%), an unrelated donor in 20 patients, and a haploidentical-related donor in 1 patient. Sixty-one percent had a Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Comorbidity Index ≥3, 40% had a Karnofsky Performance Status score <90, and 24% had a high-risk DIPSS Plus score. With a median follow-up of 40.2 months (range, 16.9 to 115 months), the 3-year overall survival and relapse-free survival were 81.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.4% to 90.5%) and 78.4% (95% CI, 61.4% to 88.5%), respectively. Only 2 patients relapsed/progressed after transplant. NRM at 2 years was 16.2% (95% CI, 6.5% to 29.9%). All patients engrafted. Sixteen patients were treated with ruxolitinib post-transplantation for graft-versus-host disease, graft rejection/relapse, or persistent MF. These results suggest that pretransplantation ruxolitinib, fludarabine/busulfan-based conditioning, and splenic management are keys to improved transplantation outcomes in patients undergoing allo-HCT for MF.

Current challenges in the management of essential thrombocythemia.

Essential thrombocythemia (ET), an uncommon blood cancer, is one of the classic myeloproliferative neoplasms, a category that also includes polycythemia vera and primary myelofibrosis. All 3 diseases are clonal hematopoietic stem cell disorders. Since 2005, when scientists discovered a molecular aberration driving clonal hematopoiesis in polycythemia vera, our understanding of the genomic underpinnings of these conditions has increased rapidly. Over the last decades, primary prevention of thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications has improved the lives of patients with ET, and the ability to characterize the disease by the presence or absence of molecular mutations has lent precision to our prognostic models. This review outlines a modern approach to the diagnosis and treatment of ET. It highlights the 2016 World Health Organization standards for differentiating the disease from primary myelofibrosis, which is key for an accurate prognosis. It also describes the current risk stratification models and discusses the vascular and hemorrhagic risks that affect patients with this chronic condition, including younger individuals and pregnant women. Finally, it outlines a simple-to-follow treatment algorithm that is based on an understanding of the vascular risks and provides a foundation for discussing treatment choices with patients.

Outcomes of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Patients with Myelofibrosis with Prior Exposure to Janus Kinase 1/2 Inhibitors.

The impact of Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor therapy before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has not been studied in a large cohort in myelofibrosis (MF). In this retrospective multicenter study, we analyzed outcomes of patients who underwent HCT for MF with prior exposure to JAK1/2 inhibitors. One hundred consecutive patients from participating centers were analyzed, and based on clinical status and response to JAK1/2 inhibitors at the time of HCT, patients were stratified into 5 groups: (1) clinical improvement (n = 23), (2) stable disease (n = 31), (3) new cytopenia/increasing blasts/intolerance (n = 15), (4) progressive disease: splenomegaly (n = 18), and (5) progressive disease: leukemic transformation (LT) (n = 13). Overall survival (OS) at 2 years was 61% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49% to 71%). OS was 91% (95% CI, 69% to 98%) for those who experienced clinical improvement and 32% (95% CI, 8% to 59%) for those who developed LT on JAK1/2 inhibitors. In multivariable analysis, response to JAK1/2 inhibitors (P = .03), dynamic international prognostic scoring system score (P = .003), and donor type (P = .006) were independent predictors of survival. Among the 66 patients who remained on JAK1/2 inhibitors until stopped for HCT, 2 patients developed serious adverse events necessitating delay of HCT and another 8 patients had symptoms with lesser severity. Adverse events were more common in patients who started tapering or abruptly stopped their regular dose ≥6 days before conditioning therapy. We conclude that prior exposure to JAK1/2 inhibitors did not adversely affect post-transplantation outcomes. Our data suggest that JAK1/2 inhibitors should be continued near to the start of conditioning therapy. The favorable outcomes of patients who experienced clinical improvement with JAK1/2 inhibitor therapy before HCT were particularly encouraging, and need further prospective validation.

Recent developments in the treatment of older individuals with acute myeloid leukemia: 2014.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in older persons remains a tremendous clinical challenge. AML in older patients is more often associated with biologically unfavorable features, and these patients are less likely to tolerate or accept intensive therapy. There have not been substantial improvements in outcome for this group of patients despite decades of research. In this review, we summarize the most substantial contributions in the past 2 years. RECENT FINDINGS: There have been three major research themes in the recently published literature for older patients with AML: methods to predict response to therapy, models to predict toxicity of therapy in older, less-fit patients, and investigation of novel agents for AML patients with either newly diagnosed or relapsed disease. An unexpected recent finding has been the observation that complete remission in this disease may not necessarily translate into an overall survival advantage, and conversely, survival benefit has been demonstrated without any improvement in complete remission. SUMMARY: Although anthracycline and cytarabine-based therapy remains the standard of care for older patients with AML, this option remains suboptimal for the vast majority of patients. We argue for a national research agenda that may help to accelerate progress for older people with AML.

Measuring response in a post-RECIST world: from black and white to shades of grey.

The unprecedented pace of therapeutic development in oncology has created a climate in which the traditional methods of evaluating agent activity might no longer be adequate. How is the field transitioning to new endpoints in early drug development and what are the difficulties in this transition? Here, we will explore the historical context for the current criteria for tumour response evaluation and some of the pitfalls in using these standards when testing newer anticancer agents for activity. We will argue that the current drug development environment dictates different outcome measurements and therefore more imaginative and rigorous early-phase trial designs.

Costs of care for lung and colon cancer patients receiving chemotherapy following FDA policy changes.

PURPOSE: Use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in US cancer care declined amidst post-marketing evidence of adverse effects and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) addition of a "black-box" warning to product labeling in March 2007. Because reduced ESA use may have led to more transfusions or increased anemia-related health care needs, we measured the policy's impact on health care costs of lung and colon cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study of 13,630 lung and 3,198 colon cancer patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) between 2002 and 2008, we calculated anemia treatment (ESA and transfusion), cancer- and non-cancer-related, and total health care costs for the chemotherapy episode of care. We used multivariable regression to examine health care costs and utilization between patients whose chemotherapy was administered before (PRE) or after (POST) March 1, 2007. RESULTS: ESA costs declined and transfusion costs were similar, resulting in lower overall POST-period anemia treatment costs (lung, $526 lower, P < 0.01; colon, $504 lower, P < 0.01). Other cancer-related health care costs increased, resulting in markedly higher POST-period total health care costs (lung, $4,706 higher, P < 0.01; colon, $11,414 higher, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although chemotherapy episode anemia treatment costs declined after the black-box warning, the savings were offset by increases in other cancer-related costs. Those increases were mainly in outpatient services and pharmacy, suggesting that likely drivers include adoption of new high-cost diagnostic approaches and therapeutic modalities. Additional research is needed to determine the effects of anemia management changes on patient outcomes and to more fully understand cost-benefit relationships in cancer treatment.

CPX-351 Pharmacokinetics and Safety in Adults with Hematologic Malignancies and Renal Function Impairment: Phase 1 Trial.

This open-label phase 1 study (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03555955) assessed CPX-351 pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety in patients with hematologic malignancies with normal or impaired renal function. Patients were enrolled into three cohorts based on their creatinine clearance (CrCl): ≥90 mL/min (Cohort 1, normal renal function, n = 7), 30 to <59 mL/min (Cohort 2, moderate renal impairment, n = 8), or <30 mL/min (Cohort 3, severe renal impairment, n = 6). Patients received intravenous CPX-351 for initial induction; blood and urine samples were collected for PK analysis. The primary objective was to assess the PK parameters for cytarabine, daunorubicin, and their respective metabolites, arabinosyluracil (Ara-U) and daunorubicinol. Renal impairment did not significantly impact the cytarabine, daunorubicin, or daunorubicinol exposure, but it caused a slight increase in the Ara-U exposure. The CPX-351 side effect profile was similar in patients with impaired renal function compared to those with normal renal function. All the patients reported ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), most commonly febrile neutropenia and nausea (57% each) and hyperglycemia (43%); no patients discontinued treatment due to TEAEs. These data suggest that CPX-351 dose adjustment is not required for patients with hematologic malignancies with moderate or severe renal impairment.

Salvage second hematopoietic cell transplantation in myeloma.

Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) as initial therapy of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) improves survival. However, data to support this approach for relapsed/progressive disease after initial AHCT (AHCT1) are limited. Using Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research data, we report the outcomes of 187 patients who underwent a second AHCT (AHCT2) for the treatment of relapsed/progressive MM. Planned tandem AHCT was excluded. Median age at AHCT2 was 59 years (range, 28 to 72), and median patient follow-up was 47 months (range, 3 to 97). Nonrelapse mortality after AHCT2 was 2% at 1 year and 4% at 3 years. Median interval from AHCT1 to relapse/progression was 18 months, and median interval between transplantations was 32 months. After AHCT2, the incidence of relapse/progression at 1 and 3 years was 51% and 82%, respectively. At 3 years after AHCT2, progression-free survival was 13%, and overall survival was 46%. In multivariate analyses, those relapsing ≥36 months after AHCT1 had superior progression-free (P = .045) and overall survival (P = .019). Patients who underwent AHCT2 after 2004 had superior survival (P = .026). AHCT2 is safe and feasible for disease progression after AHCT1. In this retrospective study, individuals relapsing ≥36 months from AHCT1 derived greater benefit from AHCT2 compared with those with a shorter disease-free interval. Storage of an adequate graft before AHCT1 will ensure that the option of a second autologous transplantation is retained for patients with relapsed/progressive MM.

PI3K Inhibition Restores and Amplifies Response to Ruxolitinib in Patients with Myelofibrosis.

PURPOSE: Treatment options are limited beyond JAK inhibitors for patients with primary myelofibrosis (MF) or secondary MF. Preclinical studies have revealed that PI3Kδ inhibition cooperates with ruxolitinib, a JAK1/2 inhibitor, to reduce proliferation and induce apoptosis of JAK2V617F-mutant cell lines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase I dose-escalation and -expansion study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of a selective PI3Kδ inhibitor, umbralisib, in combination with ruxolitinib in patients with MF who had a suboptimal response or lost response to ruxolitinib. Enrolled subjects were required to be on a stable dose of ruxolitinib for ≥8 weeks and continue that MTD at study enrollment. The recommended dose of umbralisib in combination with ruxolitinib was determined using a modified 3+3 dose-escalation design. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy outcomes were evaluated, and spleen size was measured with a novel automated digital atlas. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients with MF (median age, 67 years) with prior exposure to ruxolitinib were enrolled. A total of 2 patients treated with 800 mg umbralisib experienced reversible grade 3 asymptomatic pancreatic enzyme elevation, but no dose-limiting toxicities were seen at lower umbralisib doses. Two patients (5%) achieved a durable complete response, and 12 patients (32%) met the International Working Group-Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment response criteria of clinical improvement. With a median follow-up of 50.3 months for censored patients, overall survival was greater than 70% after 3 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Adding umbralisib to ruxolitinib in patients was well tolerated and may resensitize patients with MF to ruxolitinib without unacceptable rates of adverse events seen with earlier generation PI3Kδ inhibitors. Randomized trials testing umbralisib in the treatment of MF should be pursued.

Standardising acute myeloid leukaemia classification systems: a perspective from a panel of international experts.

The existence of two acute myeloid leukaemia classification systems-one put forth by WHO and one by the International Consensus Classification in 2022-is concerning. Although both systems appropriately move towards genomic disease definitions and reduced emphasis on blast enumeration, there are consequential disagreements between the two systems on what constitutes a diagnosis of acute myeloid leukaemia. This fundamental problem threatens the ability of heath-care providers to diagnose acute myeloid leukaemia, communicate with patients and other health-care providers, and deliver appropriate and consistent management strategies for patients with the condition. Clinical trial eligibility, standardised response assessments, and eventual drug development and regulatory pathways might also be negatively affected by the discrepancies. In this Viewpoint, we review the merits and limitations of both classification systems and illustrate how the coexistence, as well as application of both systems is an undue challenge to patients, clinicians, hematopathologists, sponsors of research, and regulators. Lastly, we emphasise the urgency and propose a roadmap, by which the two divergent classification systems can be harmonised.