Search

We evaluated the clinical and neurophysiological efficacy of rituximab (RTX) in a neurophysiologically homogeneous group of patients with monoclonal gammopathy and immunoglobulin M (IgM) anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein antibody (anti-MAG) demyelinating polyneuropathy.Twenty three anti-MAG-positive polyneuropathic patients were prospectively evaluated before and for 2 years after treatment with RTX 375 mg/msup2/sup. The Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) disability scale (INCAT-ds), modified INCAT sensory score (mISS), Medical Research Council sum score, Patients' Global Impression of Change scale were used, IgM levels were assessed and extensive electrophysiological examinations were performed before (T0) and 1 year (T1) and 2 years (T2) after RTX treatment.At T1 and T2 there was a significant reduction from T0 both in mISS and in INCAT-ds, with a p valuelt; 0.001 in the inferential Friedman's test overall analysis. Ulnar nerve Terminal Latency Index and distal motor latency significantly changed from T0 to T1 and in the overall analysis (p = 0.001 and p = 0.002), and ulnar nerve sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) amplitude was significantly increased at T2 from T1, with a p valuelt; 0.001 in the overall analysis. Analysis of the receiver-operating characteristic curves showed that a 41.8% increase in SNAP amplitude in the ulnar nerve at T2 from T0 was a fair predictor of a mISS reduction of ≥2 points (area under the curve 0.85; p = 0.005; sensitivity: 90.9%, specificity: 83.3%).This study suggests that RTX is effective in patients with clinically active demyelinating anti-MAG neuropathy over 2 years of follow-up, and that some neurophysiological variables might be useful for monitoring this efficacy.

Figure S5. OS from relapse (A) and 2nd PFS (B) in patients with ER18 vs. late relapse (LR)

Supplementary Appendix: • SUPPLEMENTARY METHODS. iFISH; ER24 analysis; clinical endpoints; statistical analysis; • SUPPLEMENTARY RESULTS. ER24 analysis; DS-ERMM score - additional analyses; outcome after relapse in the ER18 analysis; • TABLE S1A. Treatment regimens in the source studies; • TABLE S1B. Eligibility criteria for clinical trials; • TABLE S2. Patient characteristics in the overall population and stratified according to the ER24 outcome as training set and validation set; • TABLE S3. Univariate (UV) and multivariate (MV) analyses of the baseline features to predict ER24; LIST OF SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE FILES.

Purpose:Despite the improvement of therapeutic regimens, several patients with multiple myeloma (MM) still experience early relapse (ER). This subset of patients currently represents an unmet medical need.Experimental Design:We pooled data from seven European multicenter phase II/III clinical trials enrolling 2,190 patients with newly diagnosed MM from 2003 to 2017. Baseline patient evaluation included 14 clinically relevant features. Patients with complete data (n = 1,218) were split into training (n = 844) and validation sets (n = 374). In the training set, a univariate analysis and a multivariate logistic regression model on ER within 18 months (ER18) were made. The most accurate model was selected on the validation set. We also developed a dynamic version of the score by including response to treatment.Results:The Simplified Early Relapse in Multiple Myeloma (S-ERMM) score was modeled on six features weighted by a score: 5 points for high lactate dehydrogenase or t(4;14); 3 for del17p, abnormal albumin, or bone marrow plasma cells >60%; and 2 for λ free light chain. The S-ERMM identified three patient groups with different risks of ER18: Intermediate (Int) versus Low (OR = 2.39, P < 0.001) and High versus Low (OR = 5.59, P < 0.001). S-ERMM High/Int patients had significantly shorter overall survival (High vs. Low: HR = 3.24, P < 0.001; Int vs. Low: HR = 1.86, P < 0.001) and progression-free survival-2 (High vs. Low: HR = 2.89, P < 0.001; Int vs. Low: HR = 1.76, P < 0.001) than S-ERMM Low. The Dynamic S-ERMM (DS-ERMM) modulated the prognostic power of the S-ERMM.Conclusions:On the basis of simple, widely available baseline features, the S-ERMM and DS-ERMM properly identified patients with different risks of ER and survival outcomes.

The presence of peripheral blasts (PB) is a negative prognostic factor in patients with primary and secondary myelofibrosis (MF) and PB ≥4% was associated with a particularly unfavorable prognosis. Ruxolitinib (RUX) is the JAK1/2 inhibitor most used for treatment of MF-related splenomegaly and symptoms. Its role has not been assessed in correlation with PB.In 794 chronic-phase MF patients treated with RUX, we evaluated the impact of baseline percentage of PB on response (spleen and symptoms responses) and outcome (RUX discontinuation-free, leukemia-free, and overall survival). Three subgroups were compared: PB-0 (no PB, 61.3%), PB-4 (PB 1%-4%, 33.5%), and PB-9 (PB 5%-9%, 5.2%).At 3 and 6 months, spleen responses were less frequently achieved by PB-4 (P = .001) and PB-9 (P = .004) compared to PB-0 patients. RUX discontinuation-free, leukemia-free, and overall survival were also worse for PB-4 and PB-9 patients (P = .001, P = .002, and P.001, respectively).Personalized approaches beyond RUX monotherapy may be useful in PB-4 and particularly in PB-9 patients.

Patients with Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms are at high risk of thrombotic events (TEs). Predisposing factors have been identified in essential thrombocythemia (ET), polycythemia vera (PV) and primary myelofibrosis (primary MF, PMF), while yet not recognized in post PV/ET-MF (known as secondary MF, SMF). Within the 1258 SMF of the MYSEC (MYelofibrosis SECondary to PV and ET) dataset, 135 (10.7%) developed a TE at a median follow-up of 3.5 years (range, 1-21.4), with an incidence of 2.3% patients per year. Venous events accounted for two-thirds of the total. Cox multivariable analysis, supported by Fine-Gray models with death as competitive risk, showed that being on cytoreductive therapy at time of SMF evolution is associated with an absolute risk reduction of thrombosis equal to 3.3% within 3 years. Considering individually cytoreductive therapies, univariate regression model found that both conventional cytoreduction, mainly hydroxyurea, (HR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.26-0.65, p = 0.0001) and JAK inhibitors, mostly ruxolitinib, (HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.24-1.02, p = 0.05) were associated with fewer thrombosis. Our study informs treating physicians of a non-low incidence of TEs in post PV/ET-MF and of the potential protective role of cytoreductive therapy in terms of thrombotic events.

In 816 patients with 2016 World Health Organization-defined polycythemia vera (PV) enrolled in a multicenter retrospective study, we investigated the predictive value of Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and body mass index (BMI) on thrombosis, progression to post-PV myelofibrosis (PPV-MF) and survival. Patients were subgrouped according to CCI=0 (58.1%, no comorbidities) or CCI≥1 (41.9%) and according to normal/underweight (BMI&nbsp

Polycythemia Vera (PV) is a chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by exuberant red cell production leading to a broad range of symptoms that compromise quality of life and productivity of patients. PV reduces survival expectation, primarily due to thrombotic events, transformation to blast phase and post-PV myelofibrosis or to development of second cancers, which are associates with poor prognosis. Current therapeutic first line recommendations based on risk adapted classification divided patients into two groups, according to age (< or >60 years) and presence of prior thrombotic events. Low-risk patients (age 60 years and/or prior history of thrombosis), in addition to aspirin and phlebotomies, should receive cytoreductive therapy in order to reduce thrombotic risk. Nowadays hydroxyurea still remains the cytoreductive agent of first choice, reserving Interferon to young patients or childbearing women. During the last years, ruxolitinib emerged as a new treatment in PV patients, as second line therapy: it appeared especially effective in patients with severe pruritus, symptomatic splenomegaly, or post-PV myelofibrosis symptoms. Currently, in PV treatment, several molecules have been tested or are under investigation. At present, the drug that has shown the most encouraging results is givinostat.

We report the clinical presentation and risk factors for survival in 175 patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) and COVID-19, diagnosed between February and June 2020. After a median follow-up of 50 days, mortality was higher than in the general population and reached 48% in myelofibrosis (MF). Univariate analysis, showed a significant relationship between death and age, male gender, decreased lymphocyte counts, need for respiratory support, comorbidities and diagnosis of MF, while no association with essential thrombocythemia (ET), polycythemia vera (PV), and prefibrotic-PMF (pre-PMF) was found. Regarding MPN-directed therapy ongoing at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, Ruxolitinib (Ruxo) was significantly more frequent in patients who died in comparison with survivors (p=0.006). Conversely, multivariable analysis found no effect of Ruxo alone on mortality, but highlighted an increased risk of death in the 11 out of 45 patients who discontinued treatment. These findings were also confirmed in a propensity score matching analysis. In conclusion, we found a high risk of mortality during COVID-19 infection among MPN patients, especially in MF patients and/or discontinuing Ruxo at COVID-19 diagnosis. These findings call for deeper investigation on the role of Ruxo treatment and its interruption, in affecting mortality in MPN patients with COVID-19.

Background The emergence of highly active novel agents has led some to question the role of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) and subsequent consolidation therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We therefore compared autologous HSCT with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) as intensification therapy, and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD) consolidation therapy with no consolidation.Methods In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study we recruited previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma at 172 academic and community practice centres of the European Myeloma Network. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years, had symptomatic multiple myeloma stage 1-3 according to the International Staging System (I S S), measurable disease (serum M protein >10 g/L or urine M protein >200 mg in 24 h or abnormal free light chain [FLC] ratio with involved FLC >100 mg/L, or proven plasmacytoma by biopsy), and WHO performance status grade 0-2 (grade 3 was allowed if secondary to myeloma). Patients were first randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either four 42-day cycles of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m 2 administered intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32) combined with melphalan (9 mg/m(2) administered orally on days 1-4) and prednisone (60 mg/m(2) administered orally on days 1-4) or autologous HSCT after high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m(2)), stratified by site and ISS disease stage. In centres with a double HS CT policy, the first randomisation (1:1:1) was to VMP or single or double HSCT. Afterwards, a second randomisation assigned patients to receive two 28-day cycles of consolidation therapy with bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2)either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12) or no consolidation; both groups received lenalidomide maintenance therapy (10 mg orally on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle). The primary outcomes were progression-free survival from the first and second randomisations, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent each randomisation. All patients who received at least one dose of study drugs were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-017903-28) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01208766), and has completed recruitment.Findings Between Feb 25, 2011, and April 3, 2014, 1503 patients were enrolled. 1197 patients were eligible for the first randomisation, of whom 702 were assigned to autologous HSCT and 495 to VMP; 877 patients who were eligible for the first randomisation underwent the second randomisation to VRD consolidation (n=449) or no consolidation (n=428). The data cutoff date for the current analysis was Nov 26, 2018. At a median follow-up of 60.3 months (IQR 52. 2-67. 6), median progression-free survival was significantly improved with autologous HSCT compared with VMP (56.7 months [95% CI 49.3-64.5] vs 41.9 months [37.5-46.9]; hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 0.62-0.85; p=0.0001). For the second randomisation, the number of events of progression or death at data cutoff was lower than that preplanned for the final analysis; therefore, the results from the second protocol-specified interim analysis, when 66% of events were reached, are reported (data cutoff Jan 18, 2018). At a median follow-up of 42.1 months (IQR 32.3-49.2), consolidation therapy with VRD significantly improved median progression-free survival compared with no consolidation (58.9 months [54.0-not estimable] vs 45.5 months [39.5-58.4]; HR 0.77, 0.63-0.95; p=0.014). The most common grade >= 3 adverse events in the autologous HSCT group compared to the VMP group included neutropenia (513 [79%] of 652 patients vs 137 [29%] of 472 patients), thrombocytopenia (541 [83%] vs 74 [16%]), gastrointestinal disorders (80 [12%] vs 25 [5%]), and infections (192 [30%] vs 18 [4%]). 239 (34%) of 702 patients in the autologous HSCT group and 135 (27%) of 495 in the VMP group had at least one serious adverse event. Infection was the most common serious adverse event in each of the treatment groups (206 [56%] of 368 and 70 [37%] of 189). 38 (12%) of 311 deaths from first randomisation were likely to be treatment related: 26 (68%) in the autologous HSCT group and 12 (32%) in the VMP group, most frequently due to infections (eight [21%]), cardiac events (six [16%]), and second primary malignancies (20 [53%]).Interpretation This study supports the use of autologous HSCT as intensification therapy and the use of consolidation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, even in the era of novel agents. The role of high-dose chemotherapy needs to be reassessed in future studies, in particular in patients with undetectable minimal residual disease after four-drug induction regimens including a monoclonal antiboby combined with an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor plus dexamethasone. Copyright (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Deferasirox (DFX) is used for the management of iron overload (IOL) in many haematological malignancies including myelofibrosis (MF). The ‘RUX-IOL’ study retrospectively collected 69 MF patients treated with ruxolitinib (RUX) and DFX for IOL to assess: safety, efficacy in term of iron chelation response (ICR) and erythroid response (ER), and impact on overall survival of the combination therapy. The RUX–DFX therapy was administered for a median time of 12.4months (interquartile range 3.1–71.2). During treatment, 36 (52.2%) and 34 (49.3%) patients required RUX and DFX dose reductions, while eight (11.6%) and nine (13.1%) patients discontinued due to RUX- or DFX-related adverse events; no unexpected toxicity was reported. ICR and ER were achieved by 33 (47.8%) and 32 patients (46.4%) respectively. Thirteen (18.9%) patients became transfusion-independent. Median time to ICR and ER was 6.2 and 2months respectively. Patients achieving an ER were more likely to obtain an ICR also (p=0.04). In multivariable analysis, the absence of leukocytosis at baseline (p=0.02) and achievement of an ICR at any time (p=0.02) predicted improved survival. In many MF patients, the RUX–DFX combination provided ICR and ER responses that correlated with improved outcome in the absence of unexpected toxicities. This strategy deserves further clinical investigation.

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), including polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and primary myelofibrosis (PMF), are clonal disorders complicated mainly by vascular events and transformation to myelofibrosis (for PV and ET) or leukemia. Although secondary malignancies, in particular, lymphoproliferative disorders (LPNs), are rare, they occur at a higher frequency than found in the general population, and there has been recent scientific discussion regarding a hypothetical relationship between treatment with JAK inhibitors in MPN and the risk of development of LPN. This has prompted increased interest regarding the coexistence of MPN and LPN. This review focuses on the role of JAK2 and the JAK/STAT pathway in MPN and LPN, whether there is a role for the genetic background in the occurrence of both MPN and LPN and whether there is a role for cytoreductive drugs in the occurrence of both MPN and LPN. Furthermore, whether an increased risk of lymphoma development is limited to patients who receive the JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib, is a more general phenomenon that occurs following JAK1/2 inhibition or is associated with preferential JAK1 or JAK2 targeting is discussed.

The management of patients with myelofibrosis (MF) has dramatically changed since the introduction of ruxolitinib as a tailored treatment strategy. However, the perceptions about the use of this drug in clinical practice remain, at times, a matter of discussion. We conducted a survey about the diagnostic evaluation, prognostic assessment, and management of ruxolitinib in real-life clinical practice in 18 Italian hematology centers. At diagnosis, most hematologists do not use genetically or molecularly inspired score systems to assess prognosis, mainly due to scarce availability of next-generation sequencing (NGS) methodology, with NGS conversely reserved only for a subset of lower-risk MF patients with the aim of possibly improving the treatment strategy. Some common points in the management of ruxolitinib were 1) clinical triggers for ruxolitinib therapy, regardless of risk category; 2) evaluation of infectious risk before the starting of the drug; and 3) schedule of monitoring during the first 12 weeks with the need, in some instances, of supportive treatment. Further development of international recommendations and insights will allow the achievement of common criteria for the management of ruxolitinib in MF, before and after treatment, and for the definition of response and failure. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00277-019-03847-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction Chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPNs) are clonal malignant bone marrow (BM) diseases, arising from a hematopoietic stem cell. All therapies for these neoplasms have peculiar effects on the bone marrow, but little evidence has been described in the literature.Areas covered This review examines BM morphological changes following the main treatments in Philadelphia-negative MPNs. Hydroxyurea can reduce the cellularity of the erythroid and megakaryocyte lineages but has minimal impact on fibrotic evolution. There is general agreement on its dysplastic effects, with a high incidence of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. Interferon treatment can reduce or normalize BM cellularity, improve erythropoiesis, and reduce the number and atypicality of megakaryocytes. Most data describe reduction or complete resolution of marrow fibrosis; dysplastic effects are not reported. Anagrelide may induce an increase in the number of BM megakaryocytes, especially immature megakaryocytes or precursors, and a worsening of marrow fibrosis or increased transformation of essential thrombocythemia into myelofibrosis. Ruxolitinib can improve or stabilize BM fibrosis and reduces the frequency and dense clustering of megakaryocytes.Expert opinion Since previous therapy can modify BM features, it is essential to obtain information on previous or current therapies and to collect complete clinical information.

Twice-weekly carfilzomib is approved at 27 and 56 mg/m(2) to treat relapsed multiple myeloma patients. In the phase III study ARROW, once-weekly 70 mg/m 2 carfilzomib prolonged the median progression-free survival of relapsed multiple myeloma patients in comparison with twice-weekly 27 mg/m(2) carfilzomib, without adding significant toxicity. Data were pooled from two phase I/II studies of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who received nine induction cycles of carfilzomib (either 70 mg/m(2) once-weekly or 36 mg/m(2) twice-weekly), cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone, followed by carfilzomib maintenance. Overall, 121 transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were analyzed (once-weekly, n=63; twice-weekly, n=58). We found no significant difference in median progression-free survival [35.7 months (95%CI: 23.7-not reached, NR) vs 35.5 months (95%CI: 24.3-NR); HR: 1.39; P=0.26] and 3-year overall survival [70% [95%CI: 59%-84%) vs 72% (95%CI: 60%-85%); HR: 1.27; P=0.5] between once-weekly and twice-weekly carfilzomib. From the start of maintenance, 3-year progression-free survival [47% (95%CI: 33%-68%) vs 51% (95%CI: 38%-70%); HR: 1.04; P=0.92] and overall survival [72% (95%CI: 58%-89%) vs 73% (95%CI: 59%-90%); HR: 0.82; P=0.71] were similar in the once- versus twice-weekly carfilzomib. The rate of grade 3-5 hematologic (24% vs 30%; P=0.82) and non-hematologic (38% vs 41%; P=0.83) adverse events was similar in the two groups. Once-weekly 70 mg/m(2) carfilzomib as induction and maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients was as safe and effective as twice-weekly 36 mg/m(2) carfilzomib and provided a more convenient schedule. The trials are registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: 01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and 01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

BACKGROUND: After ruxolitinib discontinuation, the outcome of patients with myelofibrosis (MF) is poor with scarce therapeutic possibilities. METHODS: The authors performed a subanalysis of an observational, retrospective study (RUX-MF) that included 703 MF patients treated with ruxolitinib to investigate 1) the frequency and reasons for ruxolitinib rechallenge, 2) its therapeutic effects, and 3) its impact on overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients (31.2%) discontinued ruxolitinib for ≥14 days and survived for ≥30 days. In 60 patients (27.4%), ruxolitinib was rechallenged for ≥14 days (RUX-again patients), whereas 159 patients (72.6%) discontinued it permanently (RUX-stop patients). The baseline characteristics of the 2 cohorts were comparable, but discontinuation due to a lack/loss of spleen response was lower in RUX-again patients (P =.004). In comparison with the disease status at the first ruxolitinib stop, at its restart, there was a significant increase in patients with large splenomegaly (P 10 mg twice daily predicted better spleen (P =.05) and symptom improvements (P =.02), the reasons for/duration of ruxolitinib discontinuation and the use of other therapies before rechallenge were not associated with rechallenge efficacy. At 1 and 2 years, 33.3% and 48.3% of RUX-again patients, respectively, had permanently discontinued ruxolitinib. The median overall survival was 27.9 months, and it was significantly longer for RUX-again patients (P =.004). CONCLUSIONS: Ruxolitinib rechallenge was mainly used in intolerant patients; there were clinical improvements and a possible survival advantage in many cases, but there was a substantial rate of permanent discontinuation. Ruxolitinib rechallenge should be balanced against newer therapeutic possibilities.