Explore the vast range of titles available.

More than a decade after its discovery, advances have been made in understanding the oncogenic role of mutant CALR in BCR::ABL1-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). Disease biology has proven to be distinct from other MPN subtypes, with meaningful differences that have created opportunities for therapeutic targeting of CALR-mutant clones. Among the approaches under investigation, immunotherapy has advanced furthest into clinical development and holds promise. Several strategies are now being explored, including monoclonal antibodies directed against the CALR neoepitope, T-cell–redirecting bispecific antibodies, precision antibody–drug conjugates, vaccination approaches, and CAR T-cell therapies. Early-phase clinical trials with fully human anti-CALR monoclonal antibodies (e.g., INCA033989) have shown very promising hematologic and molecular responses with manageable toxicity. In preclinical models, bispecific antibodies and CAR T-cell therapy offer additional avenues to exploit the selective cell-surface localization of mutant CALR. By contrast, vaccination strategies have so far demonstrated limited clinical efficacy, and their potential in clinical practice remains challenging. At the same time, the complexity of CALR-driven disease raises key questions, including whether anti-CALR therapies can shift treatment goals beyond thrombotic risk reduction, how best to monitor clonal burden, and how to address immune escape. In this review, we highlight the latest therapeutic advances in CALR-mutated MPNs while outlining the critical unmet needs that will shape the future of care for these patients.

Regardless of line of therapy, treatment goals in chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) are: avoid progression to accelerated phase or blast crisis CML such that patients achieve a life expectancy comparable with that of the general population; avoid adverse events (AEs); and restore and maintain quality of life. The most important prognostic factor for achieving these goals is response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) at key milestones. For patients failing a TKI, a treatment change is mandatory to limit the risk of progression and death. There is currently no precise guideline for patients that fail a second-generation TKI, and there is a paucity of data to guide clinical decision making in this setting. There is, therefore, an unmet need for practical and actionable guidance on how to manage patients who fail a second-generation TKI. Although the term ‘failure’ includes patients failing for resistance or intolerance, the focus of this paper is failure of a second-generation TKI because of resistance. CML patients who fail their first second-generation TKI for true resistance need a more potent therapy. In these patients, the key issues to consider are the relative appropriateness of early allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or the use of a further TKI. Selection of the next line of treatment after second-generation TKI resistance should be individualized and must be based on patient-specific factors including cytogenetics, mutation profile, comorbidities, age, previous history of AEs with prior TKI therapy, and risk profile for AEs on specific TKIs. This expert opinion paper is not in conflict with existing recommendations, but instead represents an evolution of previous notions, based on new data, insights, and clinical experience. We review the treatment options for patients resistant to second-generation TKI therapy and provide our clinical opinions and guidance on key considerations for treatment decision making.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) is, at present, the only potentially curative therapy for myelofibrosis (MF). Despite many improvements, outcomes of HSCT are still burdened by substantial morbidity and high transplant-related mortality. Allogeneic transplant is generally considered in intermediate-2 and high-risk patients aged <70 years, but the optimal selection of patients and timing of the procedure remains under debate, as does as the role of JAK inhibitors in candidates for HSCT. Starting from a real-life clinical case scenario, herein we examine some of the crucial issues of HSCT for MF in light of recent refinements on MF risk stratification, data on the use of ruxolitinib before and after transplant and findings on the impact of different conditioning regimens and donor selection.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have vastly improved long-term outcomes for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). After imatinib (a first-generation TKI), second- and third-generation TKIs were developed. With five TKIs (imatinib, dasatinib, bosutinib, nilotinib, and ponatinib) targeting BCR :: ABL approved in most countries, and with the recent approval of asciminib in the USA, treatment decisions are complex and require assessment of patient-specific factors. Optimal treatment strategies for CML continue to evolve, with an increased focus on achieving deep molecular responses. Using clinically relevant case studies developed by the authors of this review, we discuss three major scenarios from the perspective of international experts. Firstly, this review explores patient-specific characteristics that affect decision-making between first- and second-generation TKIs upon initial diagnosis of CML, including patient comorbidities. Secondly, a thorough assessment of therapeutic options in the event of first-line treatment failure (as defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European LeukemiaNet guidelines) is discussed along with real-world considerations for monitoring optimal responses to TKI therapy. Thirdly, this review illustrates the considerations and importance of achieving treatment-free remission as a treatment goal. Due to the timing of the writing, this review addresses global challenges commonly faced by hematologists treating patients with CML during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lastly, as new treatment approaches continue to be explored in CML, this review also discusses the advent of newer therapies such as asciminib. This article may be a useful reference for physicians treating patients with CML with second-generation TKIs and, as it is focused on the physicians’ international and personal experiences, may give insight into alternative approaches not previously considered.

BCR-ABL1 kinase domain (KD) mutation status is considered to be an important element of clinical decision algorithms for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients who do not achieve an optimal response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Conventional Sanger sequencing is the method currently recommended to test BCR-ABL1 KD mutations. However, Sanger sequencing has limited sensitivity and cannot always discriminate between polyclonal and compound mutations. The use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly widespread in diagnostic laboratories and represents an attractive alternative. Currently available data on the clinical impact of NGS-based mutational testing in CML patients do not allow recommendations with a high grade of evidence to be prepared. This article reports the results of a group discussion among an ad hoc expert panel with the objective of producing recommendations on the appropriateness of clinical decisions about the indication for NGS, the performance characteristics of NGS platforms, and the therapeutic changes that could be applied based on the use of NGS in CML. Overall, these recommendations might be employed to inform clinicians about the practical use of NGS in CML.

Nilotinib is currently approved for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic (CP) and accelerated phase (AP) after failure of imatinib and in newly diagnosed patients. Atherosclerotic events were retrospectively reported in patients with baseline cardiovascular risk factors during nilotinib treatment. We estimated the risk of developing atherosclerotic events in patients treated with second or first-line nilotinib, with a median follow-up of 48 months, by retrospectively applying the SCORE chart proposed by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and evaluating risk factors at baseline (diabetes, obesity, smoking, and hypertension). Overall, we enrolled in the study 82 CP patients treated frontline (42 CP patients at the dose of 600 mg BID) or after failure of other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (40 CP patients treated with 400 mg BID). The SCORE chart is based on the stratification of sex (male vs female), age (from 40 to 65 years), smoker vs non-smoker, systolic pressure (from 120 to 180 mm Hg), and cholesterol (measured in mmol/l, from 150 to 300 mg/dl). For statistical purposes, we considered patients subdivided in low, moderate, high (with a score >5), and very high risk. There were 48 males and 34 females, median age 51 years (range 22–84). According to WHO classification, 42 patients were classified as normal weight (BMI <25), 26 patients were overweight (BMI 26 ≤ 30), and 14 were obese (BMI >30). Retrospective classification according to the SCORE chart revealed that 27 patients (33 %) were in the low-risk category, 30 patients (36 %) in the moderate risk category, and 24 patients (29 %) in the high risk. As regards risk factors, we revealed that 17 patients (20.7 %) had a concomitant type II controlled diabetes (without organ damage), 23 patients (28 %) were smokers, 29 patients (35 %) were receiving concomitant drugs for hypertension, and 15 patients (18 %) had concomitant dyslipidemia. Overall, the cumulative incidence of atherosclerotic events at 48 months was 8.5 % (95 % CI, 4.55–14.07): None of the low-risk patients according to the SCORE chart experienced atherosclerotic events compared to 10 % in the moderate risk category and 29 % in the high risk ( p  = 0.002). Atherosclerotic-free survival was 100, 89, and 69 % in the low, moderate, and high-risk population, respectively ( p  = 0.001). SCORE chart evaluation at disease baseline could be a valid tool to identify patients at high risk of atherosclerotic events during nilotinib treatment.

•This is the first study to investigate the sensitivity of the novel cancer-specific preference-based measures QLU-C10D in a clinical setting.•Our results show, that cancer-specific health state utility values in a myelodysplastic syndrome population may be determined using the QLU-C10D.•In general, our results inform the ongoing discussion on the arguable advantage of disease-specific over generic preference-based measures. The aim was to investigate the relative validity of the preference-based measure EORTC QLU-C10D in comparison with the EQ-5D-3L in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients. We used data from an international multicentre, observational cohort study of MDS patients. Baseline EORTC QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L scores were used and index scores calculated for Italy, Australia, and the UK. Criterion validity was established by Spearman and intraclass correlations (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. Construct validity was established by the instruments’ ability to discriminate known groups, i.e. groups whose health status is expected to differ. We analyzed data from 619 MDS patients (61.1% male; median age 73.8 years). Correlations between theoretically corresponding domains were largely higher than between unrelated domains. ICCs and Bland-Altman plots indicated moderate to good criterion validity. Ceiling effects were lower for the QLU-C10D (4.7%) than for the EQ-5D-3L (22.6%). The EQ-5D-3L failed to discriminate known-groups in two and the QLU-C10D in one of the comparisons; the QLU-C10D's efficiency in doing so was higher in clinical known-groups. Results were comparable between the countries. The QLU-C10D may be suitable to generate health utilities for economic research in MDS. Responsiveness and minimal important differences need yet to be established.

There is paucity of evidence-based data on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). We performed a multicenter propensity-matched case-control study to compare HRQOL of newly diagnosed CML patients treated with front-line dasatinib (cases) or imatinib (controls). Patient-reported HRQOL was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-CML24 questionnaires. The impact on daily life scale of the EORTC QLQ-CML24 was selected a priori in the protocol as the primary HRQOL scale for the comparative analysis. Overall, 323 CML patients were enrolled of whom 223 in therapy with imatinib and 100 in therapy with dasatinib. Patients treated with dasatinib reported better disease-specific HRQOL outcomes in impact on daily life (Δ = 8.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.17–14.27, p = 0.002), satisfaction with social life (Δ = 13.45, 95% CI: 5.82–21.08, p = 0.001), and symptom burden (Δ = 7.69, 95% CI: 3.42–11.96, p = 0.001). Analysis by age groups showed that, in patients aged 60 years and over, differences favoring dasatinib were negligible across several cancer generic and disease-specific HRQOL domains. Our findings provide novel comparative HRQOL data that extends knowledge on safety and efficacy of these two TKIs and may help to facilitate first-line treatment decisions.

Since July 2017, different generic imatinib formulations have been introduced in Italy for the treatment of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). We analyzed 168 chronic phase CML patients treated with branded imatinib for a median of 12 years (range 1–16) at a single institution who switched to a single generic formulation in order to assess the safety and impact on molecular response. The Sokal risk was low/intermediate/high in 63%, 33%, and 4% of patients, respectively. The median duration of generic imatinib treatment was 19 months (range 4–22). Twenty-seven percent of patients were in MMR and 73% were in deep molecular responses (MR4–4.5) at the time of the switch. After 12 months of treatment with generic imatinib, 140 patients were evaluable for response: 23.6% and 76.4% were respectively in MMR and in deep molecular response. When the degree of response was compared with the best molecular response observed with branded imatinib, it was found that 84% of patients maintained the response previously achieved, 6% improved it, and 10% of patients had a molecular fluctuation from the previous deep molecular response to MMR. Only 1 patient lost the MMR and no patient switched to another TKI for inefficacy. In terms of safety, 20% of patients reported new or worsening side effects, but only 2 patients returned to branded imatinib for toxicity. Our data show that the switch to generic imatinib in patients who have been previously treated with branded imatinib appears to maintain efficacy, although a proportion of patients experience new or worsening side effects.