Back to Authors

Marchetti, Monia

0000-0001-7615-0572

Mayo Clinic

Azienda Ospedaliera Nazionale SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo

Citations 4

European LeukemiaNet criteria for safety and efficacy evaluation of new drugs for myelofibrosis.
Vannucchi, Alessandro M. , Mascarenhas, John , Bose, Prithviraj , Gale, Robert Peter , Harrison, Claire , Hehlmann, Rüdiger , Koschmieder, Steffen , Tefferi, Ayalew , Barbui, Tiziano , Vannucchi, Alessandro M , Mascarenhas, John , Gale, Robert P , Bose, Prithviraj , Koschmieder, Steffen , Marchetti, Monia , Álvarez‐Larrán, Alberto , Hehlmann, Rűdiger, Kiladjian, Jean‐Jacques , Mesa, Ruben A. , Passamonti, Francesco , Rambaldi, Alessandro

No container title available | June 6, 2025 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.21203/rs.3.rs-6785954/v1 Get It

Abstract Most myelofibrosis (MF) drug approvals by Health Authorities are based on 1 or 2 outcome measures such as spleen volume reduction and/or improved quality-of-life. This 1–2 dimensional approach fails to capture the clinical complexity of MF. A European LeukemiaNet (ELN) taskforce developed a composite endpoint which allows multiple outcomes to be simultaneously measured. The panel used the Desirability-Of-Outcome-Ranking (DOOR) method to assign 25 outcomes into 4 quartiles based on a multi-dimensional desirability score and build a 5-layer composite outcome named Desirability-of-Myelofibrosis-Outcomes (DEMYO). Outcome operational definitions were tested by Delphi consensus and correlations with survival validated by a literature review. The outcomes assigned to the first two quartiles were negatively correlated with leukemia-free survival and survival. DEMYO comprehensively captures relevant MF clinical features and meaningful endpoints. Despite DEMYO requires validation based on available trial data, it is expected to improve the quality of Health Authority approvals for new drugs for MF.
International consensus statement on diagnosis, evaluation, and research of Richter transformation: the ERIC recommendations
Kittai, Adam S. , Al‐Sawaf, Othman , Benjamini, Ohad , Danilov, Alexey V. , Eichhorst, Barbara , Eyre, Toby A. , Frustaci, Anna Maria , Hallek, Michael , Hampel, Paul J. , Herishanu, Yair, Kater, Arnon P. , King, Rebecca L. , Owen, Carolyn , Rossi, Davide, Wierda, William G. , Gaïdano, Gianluca , Woyach, Jennifer A. , Eyre, Toby A , Frustaci, Anna Maria , Hampel, Paul J , Hicks, Rodney J , Kater, Arnon P , Parry, Erin M , Siddiqi, Tanya , Thompson, Philip A , Gaidano, Gianluca , Woyach, Jennifer A , Ghia, Paolo , Marchetti, Monia , Davids, Matthew S. , Herishanu, Yair , Martin-Subero, Jose Ignacio , Parry, Erin M. , Ponzoni, Maurilio , Rossi, Davide, Siddiqi, Tanya , Stilgenbauer, Stephan , Tam, Constantine S. , Hacken, Elisa ten , Wierda, William G. , Ghia, Paolo

Blood | April 16, 2025 | Volume: 146 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 291-303

10.1182/blood.2024028064 Get It

Abstract Richter transformation (RT) is defined as an aggressive lymphoma emerging in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL). Despite novel therapeutics developed in CLL, RT is associated with poor outcomes. In light of recent progress regarding the diagnostic procedures and therapeutic concepts of RT, an international group of experts, under the coordination of the European Research Initiative on CLL, has developed consensus recommendations for clinical procedures and future research on this disease. Patients with RT typically present with a rapid clinical decline, worsening B-symptoms, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, and/or rapidly enlarging lymphadenopathy. Workup should include a positron emission tomography–computed tomography scan for patients with suspected RT. An excisional biopsy should be taken from an accessible lesion, preferably with the highest fluorodeoxyglucose avidity, and analyzed for the presence of aggressive lymphoma. The molecular relationship to the original CLL clone(s) should be defined. Because no effective standard treatment for RT exists, patients should be treated in a clinical trial. Response of both RT and CLL should be assessed at an early time point, and survival end points should be prioritized in trial design. We hope that these recommendations can help to harmonize clinical and translational research and improve outcomes for patients with RT.
New Criteria for Evaluating Outcomes of Myelofibrosis Therapy
Vannucchi, Alessandro Maria, Gale, Robert Peter, Harrison, Claire, Hehlmann, Rüdiger , Tefferi, Ayalew , Barbui, Tiziano , Marchetti, Monia , Vannucchi, Alessandro M. , Mascarenhas, John , Álvarez‐Larrán, Alberto , Bose, Prithviraj , Kiladjian, Jean‐Jacques , Koschmieder, Steffen , Mesa, Ruben A. , Passamonti, Francesco , Rambaldi, Alessandro

Blood | December 5, 2024 | Volume: 144 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 7898-7898

10.1182/blood-2024-198646 Get It

Background New therapies for myelofibrosis (MF) are being developed but how these compare with current therapies is limited to analyzing single outcome measures such as spleen volume reduction or quality-of-life (QoL). However, these outcome trajectories might diverge and some endpoints may not be clinically relevant. To remedy this an ELN (European LeukemiaNet) taskforce developed a composite endpoint using the Desirability-Of-Outcome-Ranking (DOOR) method which allows multiple outcomes to be simultaneously considered and therapies achieving diverging endpoints compared. Methods An Expert Panel used DOOR to divide outcome relevancy into 8 dimensions: clinical meaningfulness, modifiability, reliability, feasibility, decisional value, acceptability, frequency, and cost. Next, a weight was assigned to each dimension using the mean Likert score assigned by the panelists. Next, the panel validated which dimensions were met by each of 30 outcomes most frequently listed by clinical trials. A weighted score (WS) for each outcome was calculated based on weights assigned to a dimension and accomplishment rates assigned to outcomes. Outcomes were then distributed into quartiles. Next, operational definitions of outcomes were tested in Delphi consensus method requiring > 75% agreement. Last, a literature review indicated correlations of the outcomes ranked in the 1st 2 quartiles with survival. Results Three composite endpoints were developed and named DEMYOs (DEsirability-of-MYelofibrosis-Outcomes). DEMYO-1, the proportion of people alive and free of severe vascular events, blast transformation, severe anaemia and thrombocytopenia and very-severe symptom burden, encompassed outcomes in the 1st quartile (WS > 29.5) and is the proposed composite endpoint for trials of people with advanced JAK-inhibitor refractory MF. DEMYO-2, defined as the proportion of people alive and free of accelerated or blast phase, severe or worsening anaemia, severe and major vascular events, severe or symptomatic splenomegaly, severe or worsening symptoms and any emergent adverse genetic abnormality, included the outcomes ranked in the 1st 2 quartiles (WS > 26.5) and is proposed for trials of people with a sub-optimal response to JAK-inhibitors. DEMYO-3, defined as the proportion of people alive and free of blast transformation, vascular events, severe, symptomatic or worsening clinical features and of worsening prognostic co-variates, included outcomes in the 1st 3 quartiles (WS > 23.5) and is proposed for trials of people not yet receiving JAK-inhibitors. Interpretation DEMYO composite endpoints capture relevant clinical features of MF and represent endpoints important to patients, physicians and other stakeholders. DEMYO validation is feasible by available trial data and, once validated, the composite endpoints can be endorsed by medicines regulatory agencies. DOOR proved feasible and robust in this 1st-in-haematology application and we encourage further use. No funding
Data-Driven Harmonization of 2022 Who and ICC Classifications of Myelodysplastic Syndromes/Neoplasms (MDS): A Study By the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS)
Ball, Somedeb , Travaglino, Erica , Ali, Najla H. Al, Fenaux, Pierre , Tinsley-Vance, Sara M., Schwabkey, Zaker , Brunner, Andrew M. , Bennett, John M. , Buckstein, Rena , Hasserjian, Robert P. , Odenike, Olatoyosi , Padron, Eric , Patnaik, Mrinal M. , Stahl, Maximilian , Xu, Mina L. , Sweet, Kendra , Sallman, David A. , Nimer, Stephen D. , Borate, Uma , Gore, Steven D. , Garcia‐Manero, Guillermo , Wang, Sa A. , Foucar, M K, Germing, Ulrich , Haferlach, Torsten , Miyazaki, Yasushi, Iastrebner, Marcelo , Cluzeau, Thomas , Loosdrecht, Arjan A. van de , Lanino, Luca , Bewersdorf, Jan Philipp , Marchetti, Monia , Maggioni, Giulia , Platzbecker, Uwe , Santini, Valeria , Díez‐Campelo, María , Singh, Avani , Jain, Akriti Gupta , Aguirre, Luis E. E. , Tinsley-Vance, Sara M., Chan, Onyee , Xie, Zhuoer , Kuykendall, Andrew , Bejar, Rafael , Carraway, Hetty E. , Dezern, Amy Elizabeth , Griffiths, Elizabeth A. , Halene, Stephanie , Lancet, Jeffrey E. , List, Alan F. , Loghavi, Sanam , Roboz, Gail J. , Sekeres, Mikkael A. , Steensma, David P. , Savona, Michael R. , Taylor, Justin , Hourigan, Christopher S. , Wei, Andrew H. , Sauta, Elisabetta , D'Amico, Saverio , Asti, Gianluca , Castellani, Gastone , Sanz, Guillermo , Efficace, Fabio , Kim, Tae Kon , Daver, Naval , Rozman, Marı́a , Órfão, Alberto , Scheinberg, Phillip , Miyazaki, Yasushi , Kulasekararaj, Austin , Kordasti, Shahram , Adès, Lionel , Zeidan, Amer M. , Komrokji, Rami S. , Della Porta, Matteo Giovanni

Blood | December 1, 2023 | Volume: 142 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 998-998

10.1182/blood-2023-186580 Get It

Background. The inclusion of gene mutations and chromosomal abnormalities in the 2022 WHO and ICC Classifications of MDS has enhanced diagnostic precision and is expected to improve clinical decision-making process. Although these two systems share similarities, clinically relevant discrepancies still exist and potentially cause inconsistency in their adoption in a clinical setting. In this study on behalf of the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS), we adopted a data-driven approach to provide a harmonization roadmap between the 2022 WHO and ICC classification for MDS. A modified Delphi Process consensus approach is currently ongoing among icMDS experts to finalize a harmonized MDS classification scheme. Methods. We analyzed retrospective international cohorts of patients with a diagnosis of MDS (n=7017) and AML (n=1002) according to WHO 2016 criteria. Hierarchical Dirichlet Processes were applied to define clusters capturing broad dependencies among all gene mutations and cytogenetic abnormalities. To investigate the features of importance and their impact on the clustering process, we employed the SHapley Additive exPlanations approach (SHAP). This allowed to define harmonized labels for each clinical entity. The clinical relevance of the unsupervised clustering was assessed through the analysis of phenotypic features and outcomes among each group. ( Blood 2022;140: 9828-9830) Results. Patients' characteristics are summarized in Table 1. We identified 9 clusters, defined by specific genomic features. The cluster of highest hierarchical importance was characterized by biallelic inactivation of TP53 (biTP53). According to SHAP analysis, bi TP53 was defined as 2 or more TP53 mutations, or 1 mutation with copy number loss or cnLOH. Most patients assigned to bi TP53 cluster had TP53 VAF>10% (77.9%) and complex karyotype (70.1%). Assignment to bi TP53 cluster was irrespective of blast count. Patients with monoallelic TP53 mutation segregated into other clusters. Hierarchically, the second cluster included patients with del(5q). SHAP analysis highlighted 5q deletion alone, or with one other chromosomal abnormality other than -7, and absence of bi TP53, as the most relevant features. Most of these patients had blast counts <5% (88.1%). The third distinct cluster included patients with SF3B1 mutations (in the absence of concurrent del(7q), abn3q26.2, complex karyotype or RUNX1 mutation). Most patients with MDS and SF3B1 mutation had <5% blasts (94.2%). Common co-mutated variants in the SF3B1 cluster included mutant DNMT3A (25.2%) and TET2 (38.3%). Morphologically defined MDS cases (i.e., not meeting criteria for bi TP53, del(5q) or SF3B1) were preferentially assigned to the following additional clusters: SF3B1 and concurrent higher-risk mutations (e.g., RUNX1 and ASXL1); SRSF2 and concomitant TET2 mutations; U2AF1 mutations with del(20q), del(7q) or -7; SRSF2 with TET2 mutations and co-mutational patterns including RUNX1 and ASXL1; and AML-like genomic signatures. Our analyses suggest that morphologically defined MDS is characterized by a large heterogeneity in terms of mutation profiles, not entirely captured by the presence of unilineage versus multilineage dysplasia, percentage of bone marrow blasts, and presence of hypocellularity and fibrosis. To better investigate the continuum between high risk MDS (i.e., patients with ≥10% blasts) and AML, an exploratory comparison was made using a cohort of AML (defined according to WHO 2016) patients analyzed using the same statistical methods. Only a partial overlap in genetic signatures was observed between MDS with ≥10% blasts and AML. However, similarities were observed between the AML-like MDS clusters (characterized by mutant NPM1, bZIP CEBPA, and Core Binding Factor abnormalities) and AML clusters defined by the same genetic signature, thus supporting the classification of these entities as AML, irrespective of blast count. Conclusion. Our study demonstrated the utility of a data-driven approach based on advanced statistical methods to generate a harmonized classification for MDS. Table 2 shows a provisional, hierarchical classification algorithm. Further refinement of entity labels and classification criteria is the subject of the ongoing modified Delphi Process consensus approach among icMDS experts.