Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: The Lancet, Elsevier BV, Vol. 401, No. 10373 ( 2023-01), p. 269-280
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0140-6736
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2067452-1
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 3306-6
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1476593-7
    SSG: 5,21
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: The Lancet Haematology, Elsevier BV, Vol. 10, No. 9 ( 2023-09), p. e735-e746
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2352-3026
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2023
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Harborside Press, LLC, Vol. 18, No. 9 ( 2020-09), p. 1248-1269
    Abstract: Eosinophilic disorders and related syndromes represent a heterogeneous group of neoplastic and nonneoplastic conditions, characterized by more eosinophils in the peripheral blood, and may involve eosinophil-induced organ damage. In the WHO classification of myeloid and lymphoid neoplasms, eosinophilic disorders characterized by dysregulated tyrosine kinase (TK) fusion genes are recognized as a new category termed, myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and rearrangement of PDGFRA , PDGFRB or FGFR1 or with PCM1-JAK2 . In addition to these aforementioned TK fusion genes, rearrangements involving FLT3 and ABL1 genes have also been described. These new NCCN Guidelines include recommendations for the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of any one of the myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia (MLN-Eo) and a TK fusion gene included in the 2017 WHO Classification, as well as MLN-Eo and a FLT3 or ABL1 rearrangement.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1540-1405 , 1540-1413
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: Harborside Press, LLC
    Publication Date: 2020
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Harborside Press, LLC, Vol. 20, No. 9 ( 2022-09), p. 1033-1062
    Abstract: The classic Philadelphia chromosome–negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) consist of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and essential thrombocythemia and are a heterogeneous group of clonal blood disorders characterized by an overproduction of blood cells. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for MPN were developed as a result of meetings convened by a multidisciplinary panel with expertise in MPN, with the goal of providing recommendations for the management of MPN in adults. The Guidelines include recommendations for the diagnostic workup, risk stratification, treatment, and supportive care strategies for the management of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and essential thrombocythemia. Assessment of symptoms at baseline and monitoring of symptom status during the course of treatment is recommended for all patients. This article focuses on the recommendations as outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the diagnosis of MPN and the risk stratification, management, and supportive care relevant to MF.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1540-1405 , 1540-1413
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: Harborside Press, LLC
    Publication Date: 2022
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 138, No. Supplement 1 ( 2021-11-05), p. 2583-2583
    Abstract: Introduction Risk stratification in PV currently involves thrombosis risk assessment, but few models have been developed to predict progression to myelofibrosis, a major cause of morbidity and late mortality. The goal of this study is to utilize machine learning to develop a clinically relevant tool for predicting progression to myelofibrosis at time of PV diagnosis. Methods We analyzed 527 PV patients within a retrospective multi-institutional cohort as previously described (Ronner Blood 2020). Available features include baseline demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, physical exam findings, and laboratory values. Baseline laboratory values were assessed either at diagnosis, or at first institutional encounter if diagnosis values were unavailable. Progression was determined clinically by the treating physician. The cohort was initially split into a development set (90%) and hold-out set (10%) stratified by disease progression status. Highly missing features, defined as over 50% missing, were excluded. Missing data in the development set were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations in 7 unique iterations. Random survival forest (RSF) models were trained and evaluated using 5-fold cross validation on each of the 7 imputed copies, resulting in 35 total models. Within each model, the Synthetic Minority Over-Sampling Technique was used to reduce class imbalance of progression vs no progression within the training set. Using minimal depth analysis across all 35 models, a set of biologically plausible features were selected. A final RSF was retrained on complete cases within the development set and evaluated on the hold-out set. Models were compared using time-dependent area under receiver operating characteristics and Harrell's c-index, which is a measure of predicted and observed concordance. To compare c-indices, Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed. Our RSF model was compared to established PV prediction models, such as the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) score and the International Working Group - Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT) score. The ELN score is determined by age and prior thrombosis, while the IWG-MRT score is determined by age, WBC, and prior thrombosis. External validation is ongoing with a single-center cohort of 470 PV patients from Weil Cornell Medical Center. Results A total of 527 patients were included in analysis, of whom 70 progressed and 8 died over a median follow up duration of 6.4 years. The median age at diagnosis was 58 years (IQR 48 - 67), and the median time to progression from PV diagnosis was 9.33 years (IQR 6.04 - 14.7). Laboratory values were available at diagnosis in 314 patients (59.6%). In the other 213 patients (40.4%), the median time from diagnosis to first contact was 4.8 years (IQR 1.9 - 9.8) and 111 (52.1%) were on cytoreductive therapy at that time. Cytogenetics, mutations, and bone marrow features were highly missing with a mean missing rate of 66.1%, and thus were excluded from analysis. The cohort had a median age at diagnosis of 57.8 years (IQR 47.6 - 66.9), WBC 10.8 x 10^9 / L (IQR 8.1 - 14.6), and proportion of neutrophilia 74.2% (IQR 66.8 - 80). After rigorous feature selection, these 3 variables were used in the final RSF model, inputted as continuous values. Across the 35 development training models, our 3-variable RSF model had a median c-index of 0.67 (IQR 0.60 - 0.74). This model significantly outperformed ELN score (0.50, IQR 0.43 - 0.58, p & lt; 0.001) and IWG-MRT score (0.48, IQR 0.43 - 0.59, p & lt; 0.001). In our final static 3-variable RSF trained on complete cases, the final c-index was 0.80, and time-dependent AUROC values of 0.99, 0.90, 0.79 at 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year from diagnosis respectively when predicted on the hold-out set. An interactive web interface for the 3-variable RSF is currently under development. The external validation cohort includes 470 PV patients, of whom 101 progressed over a median follow up 9 years. Model validation will be provided at time of presentation. Conclusions We developed a novel machine learning model for predicting progression in PV using a minimal amount of available clinical parameters. Identifying patients at high risk of progression can inform future interventional trials in high risk populations. Further work is needed in larger homogenous cohorts to assess if molecular analysis, cytoreductive therapies, or dynamic assessment can improve upon these predictions. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Abu-Zeinah: PharmaEssentia: Consultancy. Scandura: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; MPN-RF (Foundation): Research Funding; CR & T (Foudation): Research Funding; European Leukemia net: Honoraria, Other: travel fees . Silver: Abbvie: Consultancy; PharamEssentia: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Podoltsev: CTI BioPharma: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; PharmaEssentia: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squib: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Gotlib: Cogent Biosciences: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Chair for the Eligibility and Central Response Review Committee, Research Funding; Allakos: Consultancy; PharmaEssentia: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kartos: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Deciphera: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Heaney: Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; CTI: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kartos: Research Funding; Blueprint: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Cogent: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Kuykendall: Incyte: Consultancy; Abbvie: Honoraria; Blueprint: Honoraria; Pharmaessentia: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Protagonist: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria. O'Connell: Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Shionogi: Consultancy. Shammo: NS Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Baxter: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Takeda: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Honoraria, Research Funding; CTI pharma: Research Funding; Abbvie: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra zeneca: Research Funding; Stemline therapeutics: Research Funding; Kartos Pharma: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Apellis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa: La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy; AOP: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Yacoub: Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Dynavex: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ACCELERON PHARMA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Cara: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Hoffman: Novartis: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc.: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding. Mascarenhas: PharmaEssentia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Kartos: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Geron: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prelude: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Galecto: Consultancy; Promedior: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Constellation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI Biopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Forbius: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Geron: Consultancy, Research Funding.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 40, No. 16_suppl ( 2022-06-01), p. 7061-7061
    Abstract: 7061 Background: MMB, an oral JAK1/2 and ACVR1/ALK2 inhibitor, showed clinical activity on MF symptoms, RBC transfusion requirements (anemia), and spleen volume in the SIMPLIFY trials, including in MF patients (pts) with thrombocytopenia. MOMENTUM is a pivotal phase 3 study of symptomatic and anemic MF pts previously treated with a JAK inhibitor (JAKi) testing MMB vs DAN. This analysis evaluated MOMENTUM pts with baseline (BL) platelet counts (PLT) ≤150 x 10 9 /L. Methods: Eligibility: Primary or post-ET/PV MF; DIPSS high risk, Int-2, or Int-1; MF Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score (MFSAF TSS) ≥10; Hgb 〈 10 g/dL; prior JAKi for ≥90 days, or ≥28 days if RBC transfusions ≥4 units in 8 weeks (wks) or Gr 3/4 thrombocytopenia, anemia, or hematoma; palpable spleen ≥5 cm; PLT ≥25 x 10 9 /L. JAKi taper and washout was ≥21 days. Randomization: 2:1 to MMB 200 mg QD plus DAN placebo or DAN 600 mg QD plus MMB placebo for 24 wks. Primary endpoint: TSS response (≥50% reduction from BL) rate at wk 24. Key secondary endpoints, assessed sequentially at wk 24: RBC transfusion independence (TI) rate, splenic response rate (SRR; ≥25% reduction in volume from BL), change from BL in TSS, SRR (≥35% reduction from BL) and rate of zero transfusions since BL. Results: 60 (74%) of 81 MMB pts and 25 (58%) of 43 DAN pts with BL PLT ≤150 x 10 9 /L completed the 24-week randomized treatment (RT) phase. Median BL TSS were 29 (MMB) and 24 (DAN), Hgb were 7.9 (MMB) and 8.0 (DAN) g/dL, and PLT were 67 x 10 9 /L (MMB) and 64 x 10 9 /L (DAN). Prior JAKi was ruxolitinib in 124 pts (100%) and fedratinib in 6 pts (5%). Efficacy results are in Table. These results are consistent with the overall ITT analysis set (N=195). Most common Gr ≥3 TEAEs in the RT phase were thrombocytopenia (MMB, 31%; DAN, 16%) and anemia (MMB, 7%; DAN, 14%); Gr ≥3 bleeding events occurred in 9% of MMB and 5% of DAN pts. TEAEs led to study drug discontinuation in 15% of MMB and 19% of DAN pts in RT phase. A trend toward improved OS up to wk 24 was seen with MMB vs DAN [HR (95% CI)=0.490 (0.195, 1.235)]. Additional analyses of pts with BL PLT 〈 100 x 10 9 /L (N=100) and BL PLT 〈 50 x 10 9 /L (N=31) show similar treatment effects of MMB vs DAN. Conclusions: In thrombocytopenic MF pts who were symptomatic and anemic, MMB was superior to DAN for symptom responses, transfusion requirements, and spleen responses and showed comparable safety and favorable survival. MMB may address a critical unmet need in thrombocytopenic MF pts. Clinical trial information: NCT04173494. [Table: see text]
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 40, No. 16_suppl ( 2022-06-01), p. 7002-7002
    Abstract: 7002 Background: MMB, an oral JAK1/2 and ACVR1/ALK2 inhibitor, showed clinical activity on MF symptoms, RBC transfusion requirements (anemia), and spleen volume in the SIMPLIFY trials. This pivotal phase 3 study of MF patients (pts) previously treated with a JAK inhibitor (JAKi) tested MMB vs DAN on key symptom, anemia, and spleen volume endpoints at 24 weeks (wks). Methods: Eligibility: Primary or post-ET/PV MF; DIPSS high risk, Int-2, or Int-1; MF Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score (MFSAF TSS) ≥10; Hgb 〈 10 g/dL; prior JAKi for ≥90 days, or ≥28 days if RBC transfusions ≥4 units in 8 wks or Gr 3/4 thrombocytopenia, anemia, or hematoma; palpable spleen ≥5 cm. Stratification: TSS, palpable spleen, and RBC units transfused. JAKi taper and washout was ≥21 days. Randomization: 2:1 to MMB 200 mg QD plus DAN placebo or DAN 600 mg QD plus MMB placebo for 24 wks, after which pts could receive open-label MMB. Assessments: Pt reported symptoms using a daily eDiary and spleen volume by MRI or CT. The primary endpoint was TSS response (≥50% reduction from baseline [BL]) rate at wk 24. Secondary endpoints, assessed sequentially at wk 24, were RBC transfusion independence (TI) rate, splenic response rate (SRR; ≥25% reduction in volume from BL), change from BL in TSS, SRR (≥ 35% reduction from BL) and rate of zero transfusions since BL. Results: 94 of 130 (72%) MMB pts and 38 of 65 (58%) DAN pts completed the 24-wk randomized treatment (RT) phase. Median BL TSS were 28 (MMB) and 26 (DAN), Hgb were 8.1 (MMB) and 7.9 (DAN) g/dL, and platelets were 97 (MMB) and 94 (DAN) x10 9 /L. BL TI was 13% (MMB) and 15% (DAN). Prior JAKi was ruxolitinib in 195 pts (100%) and fedratinib in 9 pts (5%). All primary and key secondary endpoints were met (Table). Most common Gr ≥3 TEAEs in the RT phase of the study were thrombocytopenia (MMB, 22%; DAN, 12%) and anemia (MMB, 8%; DAN, 11%). Gr ≥3 infections occurred in 15% of MMB and 17% of DAN pts. Peripheral neuropathy occurred in 5 (4%) of MMB (all Gr ≤2) and 1 (2%) of DAN (Gr ≤2) pts in the RT phase, and none discontinued study drug. Overall, TEAEs led to study drug discontinuation in 18% of MMB and 23% of DAN pts in RT phase. A trend toward improved OS up to wk 24 was seen with MMB vs DAN (HR=0.506, p=0.0719). Conclusions: In symptomatic and anemic MF pts, MMB was superior to DAN for symptom responses, transfusion requirements, and spleen responses with comparable safety and favorable survival. MMB may address a critical unmet need, particularly in MF pts with anemia. Clinical trial information: NCT04173494. [Table: see text]
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 138, No. Supplement 1 ( 2021-11-05), p. 240-240
    Abstract: Introduction Response criteria for judging the success of PV therapeutic interventions put forth by the ELN (Barosi Blood 2013 ) require normalization of blood counts and splenomegaly for 3 months following the administration of an agent. These criteria are frequently employed as a primary outcome in clinical trials, yet, the clinical significance of meeting these criteria have not been established. The goal of this study is to evaluate the prognostic impact of ELN response criteria in a large US retrospective database of PV patients (Ronner Blood 2020). Methods Included patients were age ≥18 years at diagnosis, met 2016 WHO diagnostic criteria for PV, and were treated with a cytoreductive agent including hydroxyurea (HU), pegylated-interferon or ruxolitinib for at least 12 weeks. Laboratory and spleen measurements were collected throughout the treatment course. Attaining an ELN response throughout the study period was defined as concurrent WBC & lt;10 x 10^9/L, hematocrit & lt;45%, platelet & lt;400 x 10^9/L, and lack of palpable splenomegaly for a minimum of 12 consecutive weeks. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods were used to determine the associations between achieving an ELN response and events such as thrombosis, disease progression (development of myelofibrosis [MF], myelodysplastic syndrome [MDS] , or myeloproliferative neoplasm in blast phase [MPN-BP] as clinically determined by treating physician) and death. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models were also assessed to examine the relationship between duration of response and these outcomes. All models were adjusted for age, gender, history of prior thrombosis, and the presence of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. Results A total of 398 of the 527 patients received cytoreductive therapy for at least 12 weeks and were included in the current analysis. Baseline characteristics are shown in the Table. HU was the most common initial cytoreductive agent employed. The median maximum dose of HU was 1000mg daily (IQR 714-1500). During a median follow-up of 52.3 months, 249 (63%) patients attained an ELN response and 149 (37%) did not. The median duration of response was 37 weeks (IQR 16-74). Forty-five patients (11%) experienced a new thrombosis, including DVT (n=15), CVA/TIA (n=14), PE (n=5), MI (n=6), and splanchnic vein thrombosis (n=6). Disease progression occurred in 51 (13%) patients, including MF (n=47), MDS (n=3), and MPN-BP (n=1). Thirteen patients (3%) died during follow up. In our Cox-proportional hazards model, meeting an ELN response was not associated with a reduced risk of developing a thrombosis (p=0.86), but having a prior thrombosis was associated with acquiring a subsequent thrombosis (HR 3.3, 95% CI 1.80-6.05). Similarly, ELN responses were not associated with reduction in hazard of death (p=0.80). However, an ELN response was associated with a significant decrease in the hazard of progression (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27-0.83) (Figure). Advanced age at diagnosis was also associated with an increased hazard of progression (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05). Similar results were observed when examining the relationship of ELN response duration as a time-dependent covariate as it relates to thrombosis (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.41-1.65), progression (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.90) and death (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.23-2.88). We also evaluated the contribution of individual ELN response components using a multivariable Cox model adjusted for age, sex, prior thrombosis, and CV risk factors. The decrease in hazard of progression was largely driven by two components: WBC & lt;10 x 10^9/L (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14-0.56) and absence of splenomegaly (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12-0.52). Interestingly, achieving a platelet count of & lt;400 x 10^9/L was associated with a significant increase in the hazard of progression (HR 2.70, 95% CI 1.26-5.80) while achieving a hematocrit response was not associated with progression (HR 1.91, 95% CI 0.80-4.55). Conclusions Achieving an ELN response in PV patients is not associated with a reduction of risk for thrombosis or death but may be a surrogate endpoint for delaying disease progression. When evaluating new therapeutic strategies with the primary goal of reducing thrombotic burden in PV, the present ELN response criteria are not informative. The development of new reliable surrogate endpoints for predicting thrombotic risk are required in order to rapidly evaluate interventions that can prevent thrombosis in PV patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Podoltsev: Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; PharmaEssentia: Honoraria; CTI BioPharma: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squib: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Gotlib: Allakos: Consultancy; Cogent Biosciences: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Chair for the Eligibility and Central Response Review Committee, Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kartos: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Deciphera: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Heaney: Cogent: Research Funding; CTI: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Blueprint: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Kartos: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Kuykendall: Abbvie: Honoraria; Blueprint: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy; Protagonist: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmaessentia: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria. Shammo: Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CTI pharma: Research Funding; Stemline therapeutics: Research Funding; Kartos Pharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Research Funding; Baxter: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; NS Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Apellis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra zeneca: Research Funding. Mesa: La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Pharma: Consultancy; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; AOP: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Yacoub: Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ACCELERON PHARMA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Dynavex: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Cara: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Hoffman: Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy; Kartos Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; AbbVie Inc.: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding. Mascarenhas: AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kartos: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Constellation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Geron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Geron: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prelude: Consultancy; Promedior: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Galecto: Consultancy; CTI Biopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Forbius: Research Funding.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 9
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) ; 2022
    In:  Journal of Clinical Oncology Vol. 40, No. 16_suppl ( 2022-06-01), p. 7055-7055
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 40, No. 16_suppl ( 2022-06-01), p. 7055-7055
    Abstract: 7055 Background: CMML is a heterogenous disease exhibiting features innate to MPN and MDS. Increasing evidence supports a close interplay between systemic inflammation and risk of myeloid malignancies, notably for those with history of infection or autoimmune disease. CMML has been associated with inflammation and end-organ damage related to CKD and CVD. Analysis of gene signatures from CMML-derived monocytes has shown them to be highly proinflammatory. High ferritin may serve as a practical biomarker of disease activity to help identify pts at higher risk of poor outcomes. Methods: Retrospective data was collected from a database of CMML pts treated at Moffitt Cancer Center. Pts were stratified in 2 cohorts based on ferritin levels ( 〈 1000 or ≥1000 ng/mL). Hyperferritinemia was defined as ferritin 〉 1000 as seen at diagnosis or during follow-up. Kaplan–Meier was used to estimate OS. Cox regression was used for multivariate analysis. Results: Between August 1995 and October 2020 729 pts with CMML were identified. Median age at diagnosis was 71 (17-95). Out of 571 pts with available ferritin levels 29% (n = 168) developed hyperferritinemia vs 71% (n = 403) who did not. mOS was 32.4 mos (95%CI 30-35 mos). Pts with higher ferritin tended to present with CMML-2 (p = 0.001) and harbor a proliferative phenotype (p = 0.01). They presented with higher marrow cellularity (mean 83%, p = 0.08), PLT (mean 177k, p = 0.038), and lower Hb (mean 9.5, p 〈 0.05). There was no association with % circulating IMC, monocytes, WBC or ANC at baseline. Hyperferritinemia was associated with more profound fibrosis (p = 0.007), cytopenias (p 〈 0.05), % peripheral blasts (p 〈 0.05), RBC and PLT transfusion dependence (p 〈 0.05). Pts with hyperferritinemia had higher risk disease per IPSS-R, CPSS and all CMML models (p 〈 0.05); and had higher rates of AML transformation (p 〈 0.05). Pts were also more likely to require treatment earlier (within 3 yrs of diagnosis) (p 〈 0.05). ASXL1 (p = 0.002), EZH2 (p = 0.003), and SETBP1 (p = 0.019) mutations were more common among pts with hyperferritinemia. Conversely, TET2 (p = 0.001), CBL (p = 0.028) and SRSF2 (p = 0.003) mutations were less common. mOS for pts with hyperferritinemia was 23.9 mos (95%CI 19.9-27.9 mos), much lower than for those with ferritin 〈 1000 (mOS 40.5 mos, 95%CI 35.4-45.5 mos) (p 〈 0.05). In multivariate analysis, hyperferritinemia was a significant independent covariate for OS after adjusting for CPSS, transfusion dependence and disease phenotype (dysplastic vs proliferative) (HR = 0.69; 95%CI 0.53-0.89; p = 0.005). Conclusions: Almost 1/3 of pts with CMML will develop hyperferritinemia. This is associated with more aggressive disease and higher rates of AML transformation leading to dismal outcomes. ASXL1, EZH2, and SETBP1 MTs confer a higher risk of hyperferritinemia. Our findings indicate that hyperferritinemia is an independent prognostic biomarker that may serve as a surrogate representative of disease biology and comorbidities in CMML.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 10
    In: Leukemia, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 36, No. 4 ( 2022-04), p. 1189-1192
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0887-6924 , 1476-5551
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2008023-2
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages