No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Atypical chronic myeloid leukemia, BCR-ABL1 negative (aCML) is a rare myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)/myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) with a high rate of transformation to acute myeloid leukemia, and poor survival. Until now, the diagnosis has been based on morphological grounds only, possibly making the real frequency of the disease underestimated. Only recently, new insights in the molecular biology of MDS/MPN syndromes have deepened our knowledge of aCML, enabling us to have a better molecular profile of the disease. The knowledge gleaned from next generation sequencing has complemented morphologic and laboratory WHO criteria for myeloid neoplasms and can provide greater specificity in distinguishing aCML from alternative MDS/MPN or MPNs. The most commonly mutated genes (>20%) in aCML are SETBP1, ASXL1, N/K-RAS, SRSF2, and TET2, and less frequently (< 10%) CBL, CSFR3, JAK2, EZH2, and ETNK1. Several of these mutations affect the JAK-STAT, MAPK, and ROCK signaling pathways, which are targetable by inhibitors that are already in clinical use and may lead to a personalized treatment of aCML patients unfit for allogeneic transplant, which is currently the only curative option for fit patients. In this review, we present two emblematic clinical cases and address the new molecular findings in aCML and the available treatment options.

Summary Limited information is available on the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the management of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). The Campus CML network collected retrospective information on 8 665 CML patients followed at 46 centres throughout Italy during the pandemic between February 2020 and January 2021. Within this cohort, we recorded 217 SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive patients (2·5%). Most patients (57%) were diagnosed as having SARS‐CoV‐2 infection during the second peak of the pandemic (September 2020 to January 2021). The majority (35%) was aged between 50 and 65 years with a male prevalence (73%). Fifty‐six percent of patients presented concomitant comorbidities. The median time from CML diagnosis to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection was six years (three months to 18 years). Twenty‐one patients (9·6%) required hospitalization without the need of respiratory assistance, 18 (8·2%) were hospitalized for respiratory assistance, 8 (3·6%) were admitted to an intensive care unit, while 170 (78%) were only quarantined. Twenty‐three percent of patients discontinued tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy during the infection. Twelve patients died due to COVID‐19 with a mortality rate of 5·5% in the positive cohort and of 0·13% in the whole cohort. We could also document sequelae caused by the SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and an impact of the pandemic on the overall management of CML patients.

ITACA is an internally-validated predictive SS of ESA response in real-life 'good risk' MDS patients derived from a large international dataset that surpasses others. The incorporation of biologic markers to better identify non-responders is still needed.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) were combined with ruxolitinib in 59 anaemic myelofibrosis patients (93% with Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System [DIPSS] intermediate-2/high risk; 52·5% transfusion-dependent). Anaemia response (AR) rate was 54% and 76% of patients responded at 5 years. A further 15% displayed minor improvement in anaemia and 78% of patients reduced spleen size. Endogenous erythropoietin levels <125 u/l correlated with a higher AR rate (63% vs. 20%, P = 0·008). No thrombotic events or other toxicities occurred. Overall survival was 62% at 4 years, influenced by DIPSS and transfusion dependency. ESAs seem effective in improving anaemia in ruxruxolitinib-treated myelofibrosis patients.

Pegylated interferon (peg-IFN) was proven by phase II trials to be effective in polycythemia vera (PV); however, it is not clear whether it could improve patient outcome compared to hydroxyurea (HU). Here, we present an observational study on 65 PV patients aged 65 years or younger, who received either peg-IFN (30) or HU (35) according to the physician choice. Median follow-up was 75 months. The two cohorts were comparable for patient and disease characteristics. Eighty-seven percent of the patients treated with peg-INF responded, with a CR rate of 70% as compared to 100 and 49% with HU, respectively. Discontinuation rate was similar in the two groups (20% in peg-IFN vs 17% in HU). JAK2 allele burden was monitored in peg-INF arm only, and a reduction was observed in 88% of the patients. No thrombotic events were observed during peg-IFN treatment compared to three on HU. Disease progression to myelofibrosis or acute myeloid leukemia occurred to a patient only in peg-INF, compared to three in HU. Overall, three second malignancies were observed during the study, two in patients who received HU only, and one in a patient largely treated HU who received also peg-IFN for 3 months. Overall survival was significantly better for peg-IFN patients compared to HU, p = 0.027. Our study, albeit limited by small patient and event number and lack of randomization, confirms the efficacy of peg-INF in PV and shows a significant survival advantage for peg-INF-treated patients. Waiting for confirming data from the ongoing phase III trials, our study can support peg-INF as a first-line treatment option for PV, at least for younger patients.