Mascarenhas, John

Abstract 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.

Abstract The Philadelphia chromosome–negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), including polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and the prefibrotic form of primary myelofibrosis (PMF), frequently progress to more overt forms of MF and a type of acute leukemia termed MPN-accelerated phase/blast phase (MPN-AP/BP). Recent evidence indicates that dysregulation of the tumor suppressor tumor protein p53 (TP53) commonly occurs in the MPNs. The proteins MDM2 and MDM4 alter the cellular levels of TP53. We investigated in 1,294 patients whether abnormalities involving chromosomes 1 and 12, which harbor the genes for MDM4 and MDM2, respectively, and chromosome 17, where the gene for TP53 is located, are associated with MPN disease progression. Gain of 1q occurred not only in individuals with MPN-BP but also in patients with PV and ET, who, with further follow-up, eventually evolve to either MF and/or MPN-BP. These gains of 1q were most prevalent in patients with a history of PV and those who possessed the JAK2V617F driver mutation. The gains of 1q were accompanied by increased transcript levels of MDM4. In contrast, 12q chromosomal abnormalities were exclusively detected in patients who presented with MF or MPN-BP, but were not accompanied by further increases in MDM2/MDM4 transcript levels. Furthermore, all patients with a loss of 17p13, which leads to a deletion of TP53, had either MF or MPN-AP/BP. These findings suggest that gain of 1q, as well as deletions of 17p, are associated with perturbations of the TP53 pathway, which contribute to MPN disease progression.

BACKGROUNDThis analysis of the myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) Landmark survey evaluated gaps between patient perceptions of their disease management and physician self‐reported practices.METHODSThe survey included 813 patient respondents who had MPNs (myelofibrosis [MF], polycythemia vera [PV], or essential thrombocythemia [ET]) and 457 hematologist/oncologist respondents who treated patients with these conditions.RESULTSGreater proportions of physician respondents reported using prognostic risk classifications (MF, 83%; PV, 59%; ET, 77%) compared with patient recollections (MF, 54%; PV, 17%; ET, 31%). Most physician respondents reported that their typical symptom assessments included asking patients about the most important symptoms or a full list of symptoms, whereas many patient respondents reported less specific assessments (eg, they were asked how they were feeling). Many patient respondents did not recognize common symptoms as MPN‐related. For example, approximately one‐half or more did not believe difficulty sleeping resulted from their MPN (MF, 49%; PV, 64%; ET, 76%). Physician respondents underestimated the proportion of patients who had symptomatic PV or ET at diagnosis compared with patient respondents. There was discordance regarding treatment goals: among patient respondents with MF or PV, “slow/delay progression of condition” was the most important treatment goal, whereas physician respondents reported “symptom improvement” and “prevention of vascular/thrombotic events,” respectively. Finally, more than one‐third of patient respondents were not “very satisfied” with their physician's overall management/communication.CONCLUSIONSThe care and satisfaction of patients with MPN may be improved with increased patient education and improved patient‐physician communication. Cancer 2017;123:449–458. © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.