All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the MPN Advocates Network.
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your MPN Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe MPN Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the MPN Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The MPN Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The MPN Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by AOP Health and GSK, and supported through an educational grant from Bristol Myers Squibb. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Bookmark this article
Blast phase (BP) transformation, or secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML), is the main clinical challenge associated with the treatment of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN).1 The 20-year estimated incidence of the evolution to AML varies by MPN subtype: 9% for primary myelofibrosis (PMF), 4% for polycythemia vera (PV), and 3% for essential thrombocythemia (ET).
Past experience has shown that many patients with MPN-BP are unfit for intensive chemotherapy due to age and comorbidities. Overall survival (OS) is poor in this patient population, although the 3-year survival rate in patients who receive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT) is higher than in those who do not undergo allo-HSCT. It is important to note, however, that most patients with MPN-BP are over 65 years of age, and many suffer from comorbidities that preclude intensive chemotherapy. For these patients, HMA-based treatment regimens offer a therapeutic benefit, and it has been suggested that adding venetoclax to HMA may also offer a survival benefit for patients with MPN-BP.
Gangat N. et al., retrospectively evaluated the outcomes for 32 consecutive patients with MPN-BP treated with venetoclax + HMA at treatment centers in the US, Italy, and Canada, and recently published their results in the American Journal of Hematology.1
Patients received venetoclax in a 3-day ramp-up during Cycle 1; either 75 mg/m2 azacitidine on Days 1−7 or 20 mg/m2 decitabine on Days 1−5 were also administered. The treating physician determined the treatment cycle delays/interruptions and dose reductions, as well as timing of bone marrow biopsy (after either Cycle 1 or Cycle 2).
Laboratory findings, results of cytogenetic and molecular studies, and details related to chronic phase MPN (type, driver mutation profile, treatment) were reviewed.
Of the 32 patients with MPN-BP who received venetoclax + HMA, 23 were treated in the firstline setting and nine were treated in the relapsed/refractory setting; only one underwent prior allo-HSCT. Clinical characteristics at the time of leukemic transformation, stratified by complete response (CR)/CR with incomplete recovery (CRi) are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Clinical characteristics stratified by achievement of CR or CRi*
Variables |
All Patients |
Patients in CR/CRi |
Patients not in CR/CRi |
p value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Median age, years (range) |
69 (47–81) |
69 (53–81) |
68.5 (47–81) |
0.84 |
Male, n (%) |
19 (59) |
9 (47) |
10 (53) |
0.62 |
MPN type, n (%) |
||||
ET/Post-ET MF |
11 (34) |
8 (73) |
3 (27) |
— |
PV/Post-PV MF |
12 (38) |
1 (8) |
11 (92) |
<0.01 |
PMF |
9 (28) |
5 (56) |
4 (44) |
— |
Driver mutation, n (%) |
n = 31 |
n = 13 |
n = 18 |
— |
JAK2 |
25 (81) |
9 (36) |
16 (64) |
0.14 |
CALR |
4 (13) |
2 (50) |
2 (50) |
— |
Triple negative |
2 (6) |
2 (100) |
0 (0) |
— |
Mutations on NGS, n (%) |
n = 29 |
n = 12 |
n = 17 |
— |
TP53 |
12 (41) |
4 (33) |
8 (67) |
0.45 |
TET2 |
8 (28) |
4 (50) |
4 (50) |
0.56 |
ASXL1 |
6 (21) |
2 (33) |
4 (67) |
0.65 |
IDH1/2 |
6 (21) |
3 (50) |
3 (50) |
0.63 |
RUNX1 |
4 (14) |
1 (25) |
3 (75) |
0.46 |
N/KRAS |
4 (14) |
0 (0) |
4 (100) |
0.03 |
SRSF2 |
3 (10) |
1 (33) |
2 (67) |
0.76 |
EZH2 |
3 (10) |
1 (33) |
2 (67) |
0.76 |
U2AF1 |
2 (7) |
1 (50) |
1 (50) |
0.80 |
Splenomegaly, n (%) |
13 (41) |
4 (31) |
9 (69) |
0.22 |
Treatment for MPN, n (%) |
||||
Hydroxyurea |
25 (78) |
9 (36) |
16 (64) |
0.09 |
Anagrelide |
4 (13) |
0 (0) |
4 (100) |
0.02 |
Ruxolitinib |
6 (19) |
1 (17) |
5 (83) |
0.12 |
Other† |
2 (6) |
1 (100) |
1 (100) |
0.85 |
Time to AML, months, median (range) |
128 (3–468) |
87 (3–468) |
146 (4–404) |
0.55 |
Hemoglobin, g/dL, median (range) |
8.3 (4.6–15.9) |
8.8 (4.6–15.9) |
7.7 (5.4–10.4) |
0.09 |
Leukocyte count × 109/L, median (range) |
4.8 (0.5–60.6) |
3.2 (0.5–40) |
6.3 (0.9–60.6) |
0.51 |
Platelet count × 109/L, median (range) |
103 (15–920) |
94 (15–321) |
146 (15–920) |
0.14 |
Circulating blasts, %, median (range)‡ |
22 (0–78) |
24 (0–58) |
22 (6–78) |
0.92 |
Bone marrow blasts, %, median (range)‡ |
31 (5–90) |
35 (9–89) |
30 (5–90) |
0.53 |
Karyotype available, n (%) |
n = 29 (91%) |
n = 11 |
n = 18 |
— |
Normal karyotype |
6 (21) |
4 (67) |
2 (33) |
0.11 |
Complex karyotype |
20 (69) |
4 (20) |
16 (80) |
<0.01 |
Monosomal karyotype |
17 (59) |
4 (24) |
13 (76) |
0.05 |
ELN cytogenetic risk stratification, n (%) |
n = 29 |
n = 11 |
n = 18 |
0.06 |
Favorable |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
— |
Intermediate |
7 (24) |
5 (71) |
2 (29) |
— |
Adverse |
22 (76) |
7 (32) |
15 (68) |
— |
Blast phase status at the start of Ven + HMA therapy, n (%) |
||||
Untreated |
23 (72) |
11 (48) |
12 (52) |
0.45 |
Relapsed/refractory |
9 (28) |
3 (33) |
6 (67) |
— |
AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CR, complete response; CRi, CR with incomplete recovery; ELN, European LeukemiaNet; ET, essential thrombocythemia; MF, myelofibrosis; MPN, myeloproliferative neoplasms; NGS, next-generation sequencing; PMF, primary myelofibrosis; PV, polycythemia vera. |
Cycle delays/interruptions occurred in 11 patients, and dose reductions of venetoclax and HMA occurred in 14 (44%) and seven (22%) patients, respectively. About half of treated patients (n = 17) experienced pancytopenia related to therapy, and the incidence was similar regardless of MPN type; in 10 of these patients, this was complicated by neutropenic fever or sepsis. In addition, three patients each had hepatic function abnormalities and gastrointestinal toxicity (anorexia, fatigue, and diarrhea) associated with therapy. One patient died of intracranial hemorrhage. HMA treatment details, response rates and outcomes, stratified by CR/CRi, are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. HMA treatment details, response rates, and overall outcome*
Variables |
All Patients |
Patients in CR/CRi |
Patients not in CR/CRi |
---|---|---|---|
Prior HMA therapy, n (%) |
6 (19) |
2 (33) |
4 (67) |
HMA used, n (%) |
|||
Azacitidine |
12 (38) |
6 (50) |
6 (50) |
Decitabine |
20 (62) |
8 (40) |
12 (60) |
Dose of Ven, mg, median (range) |
200 (70–400) |
200 (70–400) |
300 (100–400) |
Median number of cycles (range) |
3 (1–7) |
3.5 (1–7) |
3 (1–6) |
Relapse after response, n (%) |
4 (13) |
4 (29) |
n/a |
Allogeneic transplant following response, n (%) |
6 (14) |
6 (43) |
n/a |
Follow-up from MPN-BP diagnosis, months, median (range) |
7 (2–24) |
7.5 (2–24) |
7 (2–24) |
Follow-up from start of Ven + HMA, months, median (range) |
5.5 (1–24) |
6.5 (1–24) |
4.5 (1–19) |
OS, months, median (range) |
8 (1–24) |
9 (1–24) |
7 (1–24) |
CR, complete response; CRi, CR with incomplete recovery; HMA, hypomethylating agents; MPN-BP, myeloproliferative neoplasm-blast phase; n/a, not applicable; OS, overall survival; Ven, venetoclax. |
Response was evaluable in all patients:
Regarding OS:
When compared to historical controls from a database of patients with MPN-BP treated with HMA alone or intensive chemotherapy, CR/CRi rates and median survival were more favorable with venetoclax + HMA compared with HMA alone; however, there was no significant difference in OS and, in fact, longer-term survival was associated with intensive chemotherapy compared with either HMA alone or venetoclax + HMA.
Predictors of response and survival were observed:
For fit patients with MPN-BP, management is centered on induction chemotherapy followed by allo-HSCT, as this is the only treatment that has demonstrated long-term survival in MPN-BP (in a small number of patients). In the study by Gangat et al., the authors demonstrated CR/CRi rates with venetoclax + HMA similar to rates that have been previously reported in AML in frontline and relapsed/refractory settings. They also identified N/KRAS mutations and complex karyotype as independent predictors of poor response. The results of this study suggest that venetoclax + HMA combination has potential value as a bridging therapy to allo-HSCT in patients with MPN-BP and needs further evaluation.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to MPN delivered to your inbox