Citations

AbstractFirst‐line cytoreductive drug of choice in high risk essential thrombocythemia (ET) is currently hydroxyurea, a practice based on the results of a randomized study; second‐line drugs of choice include pegylated interferon‐α, busulfan and anagrelide. Anagrelide clinical trials were pioneered by the late Murray N. Silverstein (1928‐1998) of the Mayo Clinic whose studies led to FDA approval in March 1997. The current study represents a retrospective examination of the potential impact of anagrelide therapy on survival and disease complications in ET. 1076 patients with ET were considered (median age 58 years; females 63%); risk distribution, according to the international prognostic score for ET (IPSET), was 28% high, 42% intermediate, and 30% low. Overall (OS), myelofibrosis‐free (MFFS) and thrombosis‐free survival data were compared for ET patients diagnosed before and after the 1997 FDA approval date for anagrelide; a significant difference was apparent in OS (P = .006; HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1‐1.7) and MFFS (P < .001; HR 4.2, 95% CI 2.7‐6.5), in favor of patients diagnosed prior to 1997; the difference was sustained during multivariable analysis that included IPSET. Similarly stratified survival data in polycythemia vera (n = 665) and primary myelofibrosis (n = 1282) showed no similar impact on survival (P = .3 and .17, respectively). The current study represents a retrospective analysis and suggests significantly decreased OS and MFFS in ET patients diagnosed after the FDA approval date of anagrelide. Whether or not anagrelide therapy was to blame for the worsening of OS and MFFS over time cannot be assumed and requires validation in a prospective study.

Key PointsSerum albumin and cholesterol levels predict survival in primary myelofibrosis, independent of each other and contemporary risk models. The cachexia index, determined by serum albumin and cholesterol levels, might further refine current prognostic models in myelofibrosis.

e16555 Background: The ProtecT trial underscores the importance of treatment in men with prostate cancer and life expectancies > 10 years and the validity of radiation therapy (RT). RT can be given with photons or protons (PT). To address the controversy of which is better, clinical outcomes of photon-based intensity modulated RT (IMRT) and PT cohorts from 2 institutions were directly compared. Methods: Under respective IRB approvals, data from 2 cohorts were analyzed. The first was 301 men treated with ultrasound image guided IMRT from 2000-05 to 75.6 Gy in 42 fractions. The second was 1214 men treated with fiducial image guided PT from 2006-10 to 78 CGE in 39 fractions. Median age and followup were 74 y and 7.2 y for IMRT and 66 y and 5.6 y for PT. Hormone therapy (ADT) was used with IMRT and PT, respectively, in 3% and 7% of low-risk patients, 25% and 9.9% of intermediate-risk, and 91% and 57.8% of high-risk. Comparative endpoints were age-stratified 5-year (5Y) survival (OS), ≥ grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) and urologic (GU) toxicity, and 5Y freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP). Results: There was a lower prevalence of GI (1.3% vs 0.1%, p = 0.0065) and GU (4.3% vs 0.1%, p < 0.0001) toxicity at last follow-up in the PT group. In the IMRT and PT cohorts, OS rates were 90.8% and 88.7% in men ≥75 (p = 0.4083). In men < 75, OS rates were 91.6% and 97.5% in the IMRT and PT low-risk patients (p = 0.003), 92.1% and 95.5% in the IMRT and PT intermediate-risk (p = 0.0535), and 92.0% and 90.0% (p = 0.4975) in the IMRT and PT high-risk. In the IMRT and PT cohorts, respectively, FFBP rates were 92.2% and 98.9% for low-risk patients (p < 0.0001), 87.3% and 94.5% for intermediate-risk patients(p = 0.0226), and 80.3% and 74.4% for high-risk patients (p = 0.5154). Conclusions: In this retrospective comparison of outcomes in cohorts of men treated with IMRT and PT for prostate cancer, FFBP rates were better with PT for men with low- and intermediate-risk disease and similar in men with high-risk disease despite longer and more frequent use of ADT in the IMRT cohort. This study underscores the difficulty of comparing retrospective series, with differences noted in age, RT dose, and ADT use between cohorts. However, the magnitude of improvement with PT is intriguing and warrants prospective testing.

AbstractBetween 1967 and 2017, 361 patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), age ≤ 40 years, were seen at our institution, constituting 12% of all MPN patients (n = 3023) seen during the same time period; disease‐specific incidences were 12% in polycythemia vera (PV; n = 79), 20% in essential thrombocythemia (ET; n = 219) and 5% in primary myelofibrosis (PMF; n = 63). Compared to their older counterparts, younger patients were more likely to present with low risk disease (P < .001) and display female preponderance in ET (P = .04), lower incidence of arterial events overall (P < .001), and higher incidence of venous thrombosis in PV (P = .01). Younger patients were also more likely to express CALR mutations, in ET and PMF, normal karyotype, in PV and PMF, and lower incidence of high molecular risk mutations in PMF (P significant in all instances). Over median follow‐up of 11.3, 13, and 7.1 years for PV, ET, and PMF, leukemic transformations were respectively documented in 4%, 2%, and 10% (P values 0.1‐0.9) while incidences of fibrotic progression in PV (22%) and ET (16%) were expectedly higher in young patients, because of their longer survival (P < .001). Median survival in young patients was 37 years for PV, 35 for ET and 20 for PMF; the corresponding values were 22, 22, and 8 years for ages 41‐60 years and 10, 11, and 3 years for ages >60 years (P < .001). Young MPN patients comprise a unique disease subset defined by an attenuated‐risk cytogenetic and mutational backdrop and conspicuously longer survival compared to their older counterparts, which requires assertion during patient counseling.