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
Polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocytopenia (ET) present increased risk of thrombosis, which is associated with poor survival.1 The stratification of thrombotic risk is vital, given that targeted therapy for PV and ET primarily focus on reducing the risk of thrombosis rather than leukemic or fibrotic progression.1 You can read a summary of how thrombotic risk may guide treatment decisions here.
At the 63rd American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition, three collaborative studies were presented on clinical parameters used to predict thrombosis. These include the individual impact of absolute neutrophil, lymphocyte, and monocyte counts (ANC, ALC, and AMC, respectively), JAK2V617F variant allele frequency (VAF), and the potential to use the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a predictor of thrombosis onset. We summarize these findings below.
This study focused on the individual prognostic impact of ANC, ALC, and AMC for arterial thrombosis (AT) and venous thrombosis (VT) in patients with ET and PV.
Two cohorts were analyzed. The first was a study cohort comprising 487 patients recruited from the Mayo Clinic: 349 with ET and 138 with PV. The second cohort was a validation set of patients with PV (N = 576).
Patient characteristics for patients with ET and PV are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Patient characteristics*
Characteristic |
ET |
PV |
---|---|---|
Median age, years (range) |
57 (18–89) |
62 (20–94) |
Female, % |
61 |
50 |
Hemoglobin levels, g/dL, median (range) |
13.8 (11.1–16.4) |
17.9 (16.1–24) |
Leukocyte count ×109/L, median (range) |
8.2 (3.2–52) |
11.8 (2.7–65.8) |
Platelet count ×109/L, median, (range) |
859 (451–3,460) |
434 (44–1,679) |
Venous events at diagnosis, % |
11 |
16 |
Venous events after diagnosis, % |
9 |
16 |
Arterial events at diagnosis, % |
12 |
20 |
Arterial events after diagnosis, % |
18 |
11 |
ET, essential thrombocytopenia; PV, polycythemia vera. |
In summary, this study provided evidence for the predictive impact of neutrophils, and possibly monocytes, toward VT in patients with PV and ET, but not AT.
The second presentation on risk factors for thrombotic events focused on the elucidation of JAK driver mutations in patients with PV, which are not currently used as a prognostic factor in this population. The aim of this study was to evaluate JAK2V617F VAF on the rate of AT and VT. Results from this abstract were recently published in Blood Cancer Journal.5
A total of 576 patients diagnosed with PV were included from the University of Florence. Again, a validation cohort was used, comprising 289 patients with PV.
Characteristics and incidence of risk factors for the training cohort are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Patient characteristics*
Characteristic |
(N = 576) |
---|---|
Median age, years (range) |
61.4 (16.2–91.8) |
Male, % |
58 |
High-risk for thrombosis, % |
60.4 |
Median JAK2V617F VAF, % (range) |
41.5 (0.3–100) |
Leukocytosis ≥11 × 109/L, % |
37.9 |
Cardiovascular risk factors, % |
|
Hypertension |
56 |
Diabetes |
10.3 |
Hyperlipidemia |
15.9 |
Active smoking |
16 |
Arterial thrombosis |
|
Before/at diagnosis, n |
76 |
Follow-up, n |
49 |
Venous thrombosis |
|
Before/at diagnosis, n |
52 |
Follow-up, n |
39 |
VAF, variant allele frequency. *Adapted from Loscocco, et al.4 |
In summary, this retrospective study revealed unique risk factors for VT and AT. This includes confirmation of JAK2V617F VAF as independent prognostic factor for future VT and VT-free survival. The appropriate cut-off for JAK2V617F VAF was >50%.
This was a retrospective study analysing 1,508 patients with PV from the ECLAP database over a median follow-up of 2.51 years. The aim was to observe whether NLR can predict AT and VT in PV.
In summary, this study demonstrated NLR as an independent predictor of VT for patients with PV and could potentially be used in a new scoring system for the diagnosis of PV.
Data from these abstracts presented at ASH 2021 have distinguished unique and shared risk factors for AT and VT. Previous thrombotic events were confirmed to predict both future AT and VT. Leukocytosis was previously promoted as a prognostic factor for future VT, and novel data from Farrukh et al.2 have provided evidence for a strong association of ANC, and perhaps AMC, in the risk of subsequent VT, and VT-free survival. Furthermore, Carobbio’s presentation encourages further research into utilizing NLR as a prognostic tool of VT in patients with PV. Finally, identification of JAK2VF VAF >50% was a confirmed molecular risk factor for VT in patients with PV, in line with published data.
Subscribe to get the best content related to MPN delivered to your inbox