Citations

AbstractDisease Overview and DiagnosisChronic neutrophilic leukemia (CNL) is a potentially aggressive myeloproliferative neoplasm, for which current WHO diagnostic criteria include leukocytosis of ≥ 25 x 109/L of which ≥ 80% are neutrophils, with < 10% circulating neutrophil precursors with blasts rarely observed. In addition, there is no dysplasia, nor clinical or molecular criteria for other myeloproliferative neoplasms.Update on DiagnosisPreviously the diagnosis of CNL was often as one of exclusion based on no identifiable cause for physiologic neutrophilia in patients fulfilling the aforementioned criteria. The 2016 WHO classification now recognizes somatic activating mutations of CSF3R (most commonly CSF3RT618I) as diagnostic, allowing for an accurate diagnosis for the majority of suspected cases through molecular testing. These mutations are primary driver mutations, accounting for the characteristic clinical phenotype and potential susceptibility to molecularly targeted therapy.Risk StratificationConcurrent mutations, common to myeloid neoplasms and their precursor states, most frequently in SETBP1 and ASXL1, are frequent and appear to be of prognostic significance. Although data are evolving on the full genomic profile, the rarity of CNL has delayed complete understanding of its full molecular pathogenesis and individual patient prognosis.

New antiviral therapies cure most patients with hepatitis C and prevent the development of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The major challenges for global hepatitis C virus eradication are the identification of patients with chronic hepatitis C, referrals to treatment, and elevated drug prices. See also pages 1644‐46.

Key Points Mutation patterns in blast phase MPN, including paired sample analysis, point to specific mutations with potential pathogenetic relevance. RUNX1 mutations predict inferior survival in blast phase MPN, independent of specific treatment strategies.

AbstractTo develop a genetic risk model for primary myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), we queried the prognostic significance of next‐generation sequencing (NGS)‐derived mutations, in the context of the Mayo cytogenetic risk stratification, which includes high‐risk (monosomal karyotype; MK), intermediate‐risk (non‐MK, classified as intermediate/poor/very poor, per the revised international prognostic scoring system; IPSS‐R), and low‐risk (classified as good/very good, per IPSS‐R). Univariate analysis in 300 consecutive patients with primary MDS identified TP53, RUNX1, U2AF1, ASXL1, EZH2, and SRSF2 mutations as “unfavorable” and SF3B1 as “favorable” risk factors for survival; for the purposes of the current study, the absence of SF3B1 mutation was accordingly dubbed as an “adverse” mutation. Analysis adjusted for age and MK, based on our previous observation of significant clustering between MK and TP53 mutations, confirmed independent prognostic contribution from RUNX1, ASXL1, and SF3B1 mutations. Multivariable analysis that included age, the Mayo cytogenetics risk model and the number of adverse mutations resulted in HRs (95% CI) of 5.3 (2.5‐10.3) for presence of three adverse mutations, 2.4 (1.6‐3.7) for presence of two adverse mutations, 1.5 (1.02‐2.2) for presence of one adverse mutation, 5.6 (3.4‐9.1) for high‐risk karyotype, 1.5 (1.1‐2.2) for intermediate‐risk karyotype and 2.4 (1.8‐3.3) for age >70 years; HR‐weighted risk point assignment generated a three‐tiered genetic risk model: high (N = 65; 5‐year survival 2%), intermediate (N = 100; 5‐year survival 18%), and low (N = 135; 5‐year survival 56%). The current study provides a practically simple risk model in MDS that is based on age, karyotype, and mutations only.

AbstractThe prognostic importance of genetic information in primary myelofibrosis (PMF) was recently highlighted in a study of over 1000 cytogenetically‐annotated patients; 5‐year survival rates were 8% for very high risk (VHR), 27% “unfavorable” and 45% “favorable” karyotype. The current study addresses the practice‐relevant question of whether or not allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) can overcome the detrimental survival effect of VHR or unfavorable karyotype. The study included 67 patients with PMF or secondary MF who received HCT at the Mayo Clinic and in whom pretransplant cytogenetic information was available. Dynamic international prognostic scoring system (DIPSS) risk distribution was 13% high, 66% intermediate‐2 and 21% intermediate‐1. Cytogenetic risk distribution was 11% VHR, 34% unfavorable and 55% favorable. At median post‐HCT follow‐up of 60 months for living patients (range 34‐170), 28 (42%) deaths were recorded. Five‐year survival was 62% and was not affected by VHR or unfavorable karyotype (P = .68). The salutary effect of HCT in patients with VHR or unfavorable karyotype was also apparent during analysis of a combined dataset that included a nontransplant cohort of 383 patients with PMF; multivariable analysis of the combined dataset (n = 450) resulted in HRs (95% CI) of 2.4 (1.6‐3.6) for absence of transplant, 3.3 (2.2‐4.8) for VHR karyotype, 1.6 (1.2‐2.1) for unfavorable karyotype, 2.9 (2.0‐4.2) for DIPSS high and 1.7 (1.4‐2.2) for DIPSS intermediate‐2. These observations were further confirmed by analysis of more stringently matched case‐control subset cohorts and provide the evidence for the therapeutic preference of HCT in cytogenetically high risk patients with MF.