The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has rapidly spread globally since being identified as a public health emergency of major international concern and has now been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). In December 2019, an outbreak of atypical pneumonia, known as COVID‐19, was identified in Wuhan, China. The newly identified zoonotic coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), is characterized by rapid human‐to‐human transmission. Many cancer patients frequently visit the hospital for treatment and disease surveillance. They may be immunocompromised due to the underlying malignancy or anticancer therapy and are at higher risk of developing infections. Several factors increase the risk of infection, and cancer patients commonly have multiple risk factors. Cancer patients appear to have an estimated twofold increased risk of contracting SARS‐CoV‐2 than the general population. With the WHO declaring the novel coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, there is an urgent need to address the impact of such a pandemic on cancer patients. This include changes to resource allocation, clinical care, and the consent process during a pandemic. Currently and due to limited data, there are no international guidelines to address the management of cancer patients in any infectious pandemic. In this review, the potential challenges associated with managing cancer patients during the COVID‐19 infection pandemic will be addressed, with suggestions of some practical approaches. Implications for Practice The main management strategies for treating cancer patients during the COVID‐19 epidemic include clear communication and education about hand hygiene, infection control measures, high‐risk exposure, and the signs and symptoms of COVID‐19. Consideration of risk and benefit for active intervention in the cancer population must be individualized. Postponing elective surgery or adjuvant chemotherapy for cancer patients with low risk of progression should be considered on a case‐by‐case basis. Minimizing outpatient visits can help to mitigate exposure and possible further transmission. Telemedicine may be used to support patients to minimize number of visits and risk of exposure. More research is needed to better understand SARS‐CoV‐2 virology and epidemiology.

No abstract

Severe thrombocytopenia (platelets <50 × 10 /L) is associated with very poor outcome of patients with myelofibrosis (MF). As patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF) differ from patients with postessential thrombocythemia (PET-MF) and postpolycythemia vera myelofibrosis (PPV-MF), we aimed to evaluate the significance of low platelets among these patients. We present clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with either PMF, PPV-MF, or PET-MF, and thrombocytopenia who presented to our institution between 1984 and 2015. Of 1269 patients (877 PMF, 212 PPV-MF, 180 PET-MF), 11% and 14% had platelets either <50 × 10 /L or between 50-100 × 10 /L, respectively. Patients with platelets <50 × 10 /L were most anemic and transfusion dependent, had highest blast count and unfavorable karyotype. In general, their overall and leukemia-free survival was the shortest with median time of 15 and 13 months, respectively; with incidence of acute leukemia almost twice as high as in the remaining patients (6.9 vs 3.6 cases per 100 person-years). Nevertheless, this observation remains mostly significant for patients with PMF, as those with PEV/PVT-MF have already significantly inferior prognosis with platelets <100 × 10 /L.

No abstract

Additional cytogenetic abnormalities (ACA) are considered a high risk feature in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). However, its prognostic significance at the time of diagnosis in the setting of new tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is less well understood. Patients with CML in CP with or without ACA at diagnosis treated with frontline TKIs in prospective clinical trials were analyzed for outcomes. Among 603 patients treated, 29 (5%) had ACA. Patients with ACA included 2 of 72 (2.8%) treated with imatinib 400 mg, 9 of 207 (4.3%) with imatinib 800 mg, 10 of 148 (6.7%) with dasatinib, 6 of 126 (4.7%) with nilotinib, and 2 of 50 (4%) with ponatinib. There was a significantly higher rate of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) at 6 months in patients without ACA (P = .02). However cumulative CCyR and major molecular response (MMR) rates were not different. Similarly, MR4.0 and MR4.5 rates were similar for both groups; two CML-ACA patients maintained MR 4.5 for at least 2 years. At 5 years, ACA at diagnosis did not significantly impact transformation-free, failure-free, event-free, or overall survival expectations. Acknowledging small sample size estimates, response rates and survival outcomes were comparable in CP with ACA irrespective of whether chromosomal abnormalities were "major route" or other. The presence of ACA at diagnosis does not confer worse prognosis for patients with CML treated with TKI. Thus, the presence of ACA at diagnosis should not alter treatment strategies in these patients.