Combination therapy with ruxolitinib plus 5-azacytidine or continuous infusion of low dose cytarabine is feasible in patients with blast-phase myeloproliferative neoplasms

Updates on accelerated and blast phase myeloproliferative neoplasms: Are we making progress?

Management approaches for accelerated and blast phase myeloproliferative neoplasms remain challenging for clinicians and patients alike. Despite many therapeutic advances, outcomes for those patients who are not allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplant eligible remain, in general, very poor. Estimated survival rates for such blast phase patients is frequently reported as less than 6 months. No specific immunological, genomic or clinicopathological signature currently exists that accurately predicts the risk and timing of transformation, which frequently induces a high degree of anxiety among patients and clinicians alike. Within this review article, we provide an up-to-date summary of current understanding of the underlying pathogenesis of accelerated and blast phase disease and discuss current therapeutic approaches and realistic outcomes. Finally, we discuss how the horizon may look with the introduction of more novel agents into the clinical arena.

Finding a Jill for JAK: Assessing Past, Present, and Future JAK Inhibitor Combination Approaches in Myelofibrosis

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm hallmarked by the upregulation of the Janus kinase (JAK)-signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathway with associated extramedullary hematopoiesis and a high burden of disease-related symptoms. While JAK inhibitor therapy is central to the management of MF, it is not without limitations. In an effort to improve treatment for MF patients, there have been significant efforts to identify combination strategies that build upon the substantial benefits of JAK inhibition. Early efforts to combine agents with additive therapeutic profiles have given way to rationally designed combinations hoping to demonstrate clinical synergism and modify the underlying disease. In this article, we review the preclinical basis and existing clinical data for JAK inhibitor combination strategies while highlighting emerging strategies of particular interest.

Management of challenging myelofibrosis after JAK inhibitor failure and/or progression

The myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) encompass a heterogenous set of diseases that have variable survival, but in the setting of treatment refractory and progressive disease, prognosis has been characteristically poor. JAK inhibition with ruxolitinib or fedratinib therapy has become the first line treatment for symptomatic or intermediate to high risk myelofibrosis. However, after three years of ruxolitinib therapy, approximately half of all patients with myelofibrosis will likely have stopped treatment. JAK inhibition failure represents a mixture of etiologies, including drug intolerance, suboptimal dosing, drug resistance, or progression of disease. JAK inhibition failure and accelerated/blast phase have now become the primary clinical challenges in the treatment of myelofibrosis and high risk polycythemia vera, and no phase III trials or clear treatment guidelines exist to guide management strategies in this setting. On the other hand, this represents an exciting time in treatment of JAK inhibitor failure and accelerated phase MPNs due to the advent of recently approved drugs as well as new targeted agents currently under investigation. In this article, we review the management options for these challenging clinical scenarios. We discuss the options for JAK inhibitor dose optimization and overcoming resistance by utilizing combinations of JAK inhibition, primarily ruxolitinib, with alternative commercially available therapies. For patients who have progressed, we discuss recent data regarding targeted therapy options approved for AML that represent potentially efficacious options in the progressive MPN setting. We also discuss the new clinical agents under development in MF and accelerated MPNs that may offer new therapeutic options in the years to come.

Myelofibrosis: best practices, controversies and 2019 update

Introduction: Recent advances in the prognostic scheme and treatment of primary and secondary myelofibrosis (MF) have resulted in an overwhelming amount of clinical information to assimilate. The authors believe a comprehensive review that summarizes the most recent published literature, could serve as guidelines for the practicing hematologist.Areas covered: The authors provide a summary of landmark articles regarding epidemiology, symptoms, and pathogenesis of disease. The authors conducted a systematic literature review to answer questions regarding differences between primary myelofibrosis (PMF) and secondary myelofibrosis (SMF), appropriate use and selection of the current risk-stratification models, early versus late treatment of MF and current practices in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for MF. The authors conclude the article with their clinical opinion based on their experience and literature review. The purpose of this article is to identify current practices, address any variation, identify and investigate conflicting results and produce statements to guide decision-making.Expert opinion: In this section, the authors advocate for and provide examples of a standardized way of incorporating future discoveries in the pathogenesis and risk-stratification models of MF. They also discuss the importance of using only one risk-stratification model for PMF and one for SMF and their reasoning for early instead of late treatment of MF.

Safety and efficacy of combined ruxolitinib and decitabine in accelerated and blast-phase myeloproliferative neoplasms

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), including polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and primary myelofibrosis, have a propensity to evolve into accelerated and blast-phase disease (MPN-AP/BP), carrying a dismal prognosis. Conventional antileukemia therapy has limited efficacy in this setting. Thus, MPN-AP/BP is an urgent unmet clinical need. Modest responses to hypomethylating agents and single-agent ruxolitinib have been reported. More recently, combination of ruxolitinib and decitabine has demonstrated synergistic in vitro activity in human and murine systems. These observations led us to conduct a phase 1 study to explore the safety of combined decitabine and dose-escalated ruxolitinib in patients with MPN-AP/BP. A total of 21 patients were accrued to this multicenter study. Ruxolitinib was administered at doses of 10, 15, 25, or 50 mg twice daily in combination with decitabine (20 mg/m² per day for 5 days) in 28-day cycles. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The most common reasons for study discontinuation were toxicity/adverse events (37%) and disease progression (21%). Fourteen patients died during study treatment period or follow-up. The median overall survival for patients on study was 7.9 months (95% confidence interval, 4.1-not reached). Among evaluable patients, the overall response rate by protocol-defined criteria (complete remission with incomplete count recovery + partial remission) was 9/17 (53%) and by intention-to-treat analysis was 9/21 (42.9%). The combination of decitabine and ruxolitinib was generally well tolerated by patients with MPN-AP/BP and demonstrates potentially promising clinical activity. A phase 2 trial evaluating the efficacy of this combination regimen is ongoing within the Myeloproliferative Disorder Research Consortium.

Leukemic Transformation of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Therapeutic and Genomic Considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although BCR-ABL1-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) are chronic, clonal hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) disorders marked by proliferation of one or more myeloid lineages, a substantial proportion of patients transform to acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemic transformation (LT) from a pre-existing MPN carries a dismal prognosis. Here, we review recent genetic, biological, and clinical data regarding LT.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the last decade, DNA sequencing has revolutionized our understanding of the genomic landscape of LT. Mutations in TP53, ASXL1, EZH2, IDH1/2, and SRSF2 are significantly associated with increased risk of LT of MPNs. Preclinical modeling of these mutations is underway and has yielded important biological insights, some of which have therapeutic implications. Recent progress has led to the identification of recurrent genomic alterations in patients with LT. This has allowed mechanistic and therapeutic insight into the process of LT. In turn, this may lead to more mechanism-based therapeutic strategies that may improve patient outcomes.

The ruxolitinib effect: understanding how molecular pathogenesis and epigenetic dysregulation impact therapeutic efficacy in myeloproliferative neoplasms

The myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), polycythaemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis (PMF) are linked by a propensity to thrombosis formation and a risk of leukaemic transformation. Activation of cytokine independent signalling through the JAK/STAT cascade is a feature of these disorders. A point mutation in exon 14 of the JAK2 gene resulting in the formation of the JAK2 V617F transcript occurs in 95% of PV patients and around 50% of ET and PMF patients driving constitutive activation of the JAK/STAT pathway. Mutations in CALR or MPL are present as driving mutations in the majority of remaining ET and PMF patients. Ruxolitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor which inhibits JAK1 and JAK2. It is approved for use in intermediate and high risk PMF, and in PV patients who are resistant or intolerant to hydroxycarbamide. In randomised controlled trials it has demonstrated efficacy in spleen volume reduction and symptom burden reduction with a moderate improvement in overall survival in PMF. In PV, there is demonstrated benefit in haematocrit control and spleen volume. Despite these benefits, there is limited impact to induce complete haematological remission with normalisation of blood counts, reduce the mutant allele burden or reverse bone marrow fibrosis. Clonal evolution has been observed on ruxolitinib therapy and transformation to acute leukaemia can still occur. This review will concentrate on understanding the clinical and molecular effects of ruxolitinib in MPN. We will focus on understanding the limitations of JAK inhibition and the challenges to improving therapeutic efficacy in these disorders. We will explore the demonstrated benefits and disadvantages of ruxolitinib in the clinic, the role of genomic and clonal variability in pathogenesis and response to JAK inhibition, epigenetic changes which impact on response to therapy, the role of DNA damage and the role of inflammation in these disorders. Finally, we will summarise the future prospects for improving therapy in MPN in the JAK inhibition era.

Managing myelofibrosis (MF) that "blasts" through: advancements in the treatment of relapsed/refractory and blast-phase MF

Myelofibrosis (MF) is the most aggressive form of Philadelphia chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm, and it is complicated by severe symptom burden, thrombotic events, infections, cytopenias, and transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Ruxolitinib, the first-line therapy for symptomatic or intermediate- and high-prognostic risk MF, has improved overall survival for this population. However, approximately one-half of MF patients will discontinue ruxolitinib by the first few years of therapy due to a spectrum of resistance, intolerance, relapse, or progression to blast phase disease. Danazol, erythropoietin-stimulating agents, and spleen-directed therapies can be useful in the ruxolitinib-resistant setting. In the ruxolitinib-refractory or -intolerant setting, commercial and novel therapies, either alone or in combination with ruxolitinib, have shown clinical utility. For blast-phase MF, the recent advancements in available AML therapies have increased the options with targeted and more tolerable therapies. In this article, we will discuss our paradigm for the management of relapsed/refractory and blast-phase MF in the context of therapeutic advancements in both AML and MF.

How I treat myelofibrosis after failure of JAK inhibitors

The introduction of JAK inhibitors, leading to regulatory approval of ruxolitinib, represents a major therapeutic advance in myelofibrosis (MF). Most patients experience reduction in splenomegaly and improved quality of life from symptom improvement. It is a paradox, however, that, despite inhibition of signaling downstream of disease-related driver mutations, JAK inhibitor treatment is not associated with consistent molecular or pathologic responses in MF. Furthermore, there are important limitations to JAK inhibitor therapy including development of dose-limiting cytopenias and/or nonhematological toxicities such as neuropathy or opportunistic infections. Over half of the patients discontinue treatment within 3 years of starting treatment. Although data are sparse, clinical outcome after JAK inhibitor "failure" is likely poor; consequently, it is important to understand patterns of failure to select appropriate salvage treatment(s). An algorithmic approach, particularly one that incorporates cytogenetics/molecular data, is most helpful in selecting stem cell transplant candidates. Treatment of transplant-ineligible patients relies on a problem-based approach that includes use of investigational drugs, or consideration of splenectomy or radiotherapy. Data from early phase ruxolitinib combination studies, despite promising preclinical data, have not shown clear benefit over monotherapy thus far. Development of effective treatment strategies for MF patients failing JAK inhibitors remains a major unmet need.

Acute Myeloid Leukemia: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was initially subdivided according to morphology (the French-American-British system), which proved helpful in pathologic categorization. Subsequently, clinical and genomic factors were found to correlate with response to chemotherapy and with overall survival. These included a history of antecedent hematologic disease, a history of chemotherapy or radiation therapy, the presence of various recurrent cytogenetic abnormalities, and, more recently, the presence of specific point mutations. This article reviews the biology and responses of one AML subgroup with consistent response and good outcomes following chemotherapy (core-binding factor leukemia), and two subgroups with persistently bad, and even ugly, outcomes (secondary AML and TP53-mutated AML).

Outcome of Ph negative myeloproliferative neoplasms transforming to accelerated or leukemic phase

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) are chronic disorders that can sometimes evolve into accelerated or leukemic phases. We retrospectively identified 122 patients with such blastic phases. The overall median survival was four months: 10.2 months for patients treated with intensive treatments compared to three months for best supportive care (p = .005). Azacytidine, intensive chemotherapies, or allogeneic stem cell transplantation gave the highest median survivals with 9, 10.2, and 19.4 months, respectively. Accelerated phases (AP) had a longer median survival compared to acute leukemia (4.8 months vs. 3.1 months; p = .02). In this retrospective and observational study, we observe that the longest survivals are seen in patients eligible for intensive treatments. Azacytidine shows interesting results in patients non-fit for intensive chemotherapy. Supportive care should probably be restricted to elderly patients and those with unfavorable karyotype. An early diagnosis of AP could also result in a better survival rate.

A Concise Update on Risk Factors, Therapy, and Outcome of Leukemic Transformation of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) in chronic phase that evolve into blast phase (BP) hold a dismal prognosis and represent an urgent unmet clinical need. The mutational landscape of MPN-BP is distinct from de novo acute myeloid leukemia and offers insight into molecular mechanisms contributing to clonal evolution providing potential novel drug targets. A number of retrospective studies have identified patient- and disease-specific variables associated with increased risk of leukemic transformation (LT) of an underlying MPN. Several prognostic models have been developed to identify those MPN patients at highest risk for LT that may warrant early aggressive therapeutic intervention. Acute myeloid leukemia-type induction chemotherapy does not offer a significant survival benefit for MPN-BP unless followed by hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Unfortunately, most patients with MPN-BP are not candidates for hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation as a result of advanced age, competing comorbid conditions, or lack of an acceptable donor graft option. JAK2 inhibitor monotherapy is effective in reducing splenomegaly and symptom burden in the majority of treated patients with myelofibrosis, but LT can still occur. High-dose JAK2 inhibitor monotherapy appears tolerable but only modestly active in the treatment of MPN-BP. Current JAK2 inhibitor-based combination therapy approaches are supported by preclinical investigation and are currently being tested in multicenter clinical trials.

Emerging treatments for classical myeloproliferative neoplasms

There has been a major revolution in the management of patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), and in particular those with myelofibrosis and extensive splenomegaly and symptomatic burden, after the introduction of the JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib. The drug also has been approved as second-line therapy for polycythemia vera (PV). However, the therapeutic armamentarium for MPN is still largely inadequate for coping with patients' major unmet needs, which include normalization of life span (myelofibrosis and some patients with PV), reduction of cardiovascular complications (mainly PV and essential thrombocythemia), prevention of hematological progression, and improved quality of life (all MPN). In fact, none of the available drugs has shown clear evidence of disease-modifying activity, even if some patients treated with interferon and ruxolitinib showed reduction of mutated allele burden, and ruxolitinib might extend survival of patients with higher-risk myelofibrosis. Raised awareness of the molecular abnormalities and cellular pathways involved in the pathogenesis of MPN is facilitating the development of clinical trials with novel target drugs, either alone or in combination with ruxolitinib. Although for most of these molecules a convincing preclinical rationale was provided, the results of early phase 1 and 2 clinical trials have been quite disappointing to date, and toxicities sometimes have been limiting. In this review, we critically illustrate the current landscape of novel therapies that are under evaluation for patients with MPN on the basis of current guidelines, patient risk stratification criteria, and previous experience, looking ahead to the chance of a cure for these disorders.

Clinical use of ruxolitinib in an academic medical center in unselected patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms not on clinical study

Ruxolitinib is the only approved therapy for myelofibrosis (MF). However, its use in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) not participating in clinical studies has been poorly described. We reviewed the medical records of 45 patients (35 MF, 10 others) treated with ruxolitinib at our center, off clinical study, during the year after its approval. Patients had advanced features and were refractory to multiple therapies. Ruxolitinib was effective in reducing splenomegaly (51% response rate) and constitutional symptoms (42% response rate). It controlled blood counts in patients with polycythemia and thrombocythemia but was not effective in patients with non-classic MPNs. Ruxolitinib was an active therapy in patients previously treated with a JAK inhibitor and was safely combined with hypomethylating agents in patients with elevated blasts. Median overall survival was 24 months; 10 patients transformed to acute leukemia. Its use in combination with other active agents should be further explored in clinical studies.