Major progress has been recently made in understanding the molecular pathogenesis of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). Mutations in one of four genes-JAK2, MPL, CALR, and CSF3R-can be found in the vast majority of patients with MPN and represent driver mutations that can induce the MPN phenotype. Hyperactive JAK/STAT signaling appears to be the common denominator of MPN, even in patients with CALR mutations and the so-called "triple-negative" MPN, where the driver gene mutation is still unknown. Mutations in epigenetic regulators, transcription factors, and signaling components modify the course of the disease and can contribute to disease initiation and/or progression. The central role of JAK2 in MPN allowed development of small molecular inhibitors that are in clinical use and are active in almost all patients with MPN. Advances in understanding the mechanism of JAK2 activation open new perspectives of developing the next generation of inhibitors that will be selective for the mutated forms of JAK2.

No abstract

SummaryThree-drug induction regimens have become the standard of care in newly diagnosed transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients. Two frequently used protocols are bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) and bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTD). Comparisons between the two are lacking. The present study aimed to identify the differences in response rate and toxicity between the two regimens. Databases were searched using the terms 'VTD' or 'VCD' and 'induction regimens for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma'. Prospective trials evaluating initial response in transplant eligible patients were included. The main outcome measures were response rates and adverse events. Eight clinical trials were eligible for analysis. Overall 672 patients were treated with either VCD (n = 157) or VTD (n = 515) as induction therapy. Patients treated with VTD presented with a significantly higher complete/near complete response (34% vs. 6%, P = 0Á002) as well as a higher very good partial response rate or better, following induction therapy (62% vs. 27%, P < 0Á0001). Although grade 3-4 neurotoxicity was more frequent during VTD therapy (11% vs. 6%, P = 0Á057), a higher incidence of overall grade 3-4 adverse events was found in the VCD-treated patients (74% vs. 51%, P < 0Á001). VTD induction therapy may be superior in achieving deeper response rate following induction therapy, and is better tolerated.