PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of ajbrLink to Publisher's site
 
Am J Blood Res. 2012; 2(3): 170–186.
Published online 2012 September 23.
PMCID: PMC3484412

Emerging therapeutic options for myelofibrosis: a Canadian perspective

Abstract

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a clonal stem cell disorder characterized by cytopenias, splenomegaly, marrow fibrosis, and systemic symptoms due to elevated inflammatory cytokines. MF is associated with decreased survival. The quality of life of patients with MF is similar to other advanced malignancies. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation is a curative treatment, but is applicable to a minority of patients with MF. None of the conventional therapies are known to alter the natural history of the disease. Significant progress has been made in the last few years in the understanding of disease biology of MF. Discovery of the JAK2V617F mutation paved the way for drug discovery in MF, and the first JAK1/2 inhibitor, ruxolitinib, has been approved by FDA and Health Canada. Several other JAK1/2 inhibitors are at various stages of clinical development. As a consequence, the therapeutic landscape of MF is changing from a disease where no effective therapies existed to one with several novel treatment options on the horizon. In this report, we assess the changing therapeutic options for MF, and critically analyze the position of novel treatments in the current armamentarium.

Keywords: Myelofibrosis, JAK1/2, ruxolitinib, splenomegaly, treatment options

Introduction

Primary myelofibrosis (PMF) is a clonal disease of hematopoietic stem cells. It is characterized by cytopenias, leukoerythroblastic blood picture, marrow fibrosis, and extramedullary hematopoiesis. A disease phenotype similar to PMF occurs in the natural history of polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET), known as post-polycythemic myelofibrosis (PPV-MF) and post-ET myelofibrosis (PET-MF). In this report, PMF, PPV-MF, and PET-MF will be referred to as myelofibrosis (MF).

The estimated incidence of MF is 0.5-1.5 per 100,000 population [1,2]. The median age at diagnosis is 69 years [3,4], and < 15% are below age 50 years at the time of diagnosis [4]. The diagnosis of PMF is based on well-accepted World Health Organization (WHO) criteria [5], and the diagnoses of post-PV MF and post-ET MF are based on International Working Group for Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT) criteria [6] (Table 1).

Table 1
Diagnostic criteria for primary myelofibrosis (PMF) and myelofibrosis secondary to polycythemia vera (PV-MF) or essential thrombocythemia (ET-MF).

Clonal myeloproliferation in MF is accompanied by abnormal proinflammatory and proangiogenic cytokine expression, resulting in a secondary inflammatory stage. Splenomegaly is the major sign of MF, present in about 90% of patients. Also common is hepatomegaly, present in about 50% of patients [4]. Organomegaly is due to extramedullary hematopoiesis and may be accompanied by symptoms of early satiety, left upper quadrant pain and peripheral edema [7]. Constitutional symptoms, which include fatigue, pruritus, night sweats and fever, have been associated with elevated inflammatory cytokines [8]. MF-related constitutional symptoms and abdominal symptoms from splenomegaly have a profound impact on patient quality of life. The QOL of patients with MF is similar to those with advanced solid tumors and other hematologic malignancies [9,10].

In addition, MF can lead sometimes to debilitating complications such as chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension and portal hypertension, which may manifest at any time during the disease course [11,12]. In a large series of 1,054 consecutive cases, the most common cause of death was transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML; 31% of deaths) (Figure 1) [4]. Other causes of death included PMF progression (18%), thrombosis and cardiovascular complications (13%), infection (11%) or bleeding out of the setting of acute transformation (5%), and portal hypertension (4%).

Figure 1
Known causes of death in a series of consecutive PMF cases at 7 centers. Adapted from Cervantes et al. [4].

Prognostic risk scoring models

MF is a heterogeneous disease and the clinical course can vary from an indolent disease lasting for more than a decade to aggressive behaviour with an average life expectancy in the range of 2-4 years [2,4,13]. The behavior of MF can be predicted by the presence of various patient-and disease-related risk factors.

At diagnosis, risk can be stratified using the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS), which scores five variables to predict survival [4,14]. Based on the number of risk factors (0, 1, 2, and ≥3), IPSS stratifies patients as Low, Intermediate-1, Intermediate-2, and High risk; estimated median survival for these four groups is 135 months, 95 months, 48 months and 27 months, respectively (Table 2A, ,2B)2B) [4].

Table 2A
International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and Dynamic IPSS (DIPSS) for survival in primary myelofibrosis.
Table 2B
Scoring and median survival [4,13].

The IWG-MRT group subsequently evaluated IPSS risk factors in a time-dependent fashion and described a dynamic IPSS (DIPSS) [13]. The same risk factors for IPSS were found to be of prognostic value in DIPSS (Table 2A). However, since mortality was almost two-fold higher with anemia than with other risk factors, anemia was given a score of 2. IPSS is usually recommended for use at the time of diagnosis and DIPSS at any time during disease management. Attempts have also been made by investigators from the Mayo clinic to refine the prognostic value of DIPSS by including three additional variables affecting survival: a need for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, thrombocytopenia, and unfavorable karyotype [15]. This new scoring system, DIPSS plus, has not been validated in another independent database. RBC transfusion dependency has been shown to be an independent prognostic factor for poorer survival [16]. In addition, elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines also appear to have an adverse impact on survival [8].

After establishing the diagnosis, it is important to perform risk-stratification for each patient as this plays an important part in the treatment strategy. The risk score should be reviewed on a regular basis to determine whether any change in therapeutic strategy is needed.

Cytogenetics

Clonal karyotype anomalies are found in an estimated 33-45% of PMF cases and several studies have investigated the prognostic value of an abnormal karyotype [17-22]. Favorable karyotypes are normal karyotype, sole 13q-, sole 20q-, sole +9, sole chromosome 1 translocation/duplication, other sole abnormalities, and two abnormalities without an unfavorable type [22]. An unfavorable prognosis is associated with complex karyotypes (≥3 abnormalities), sole +8, sole -7/7q-, and two abnormalities including an unfavorable type [22]. Trisomy 8 and trisomy 9 are frequent aberrations in PMF, with each occurring in about 10% of chromosomally aberrant cases [23]. Unfavorable karyotypes are associated with thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, circulating blasts ≥1%, lower hemoglobin levels and a high-risk IPSS score [22]. Available data suggest that patients with unfavorable karyotypes are at high risk of leukemic transformation [22,24].

Molecular pathogenesis of MF

Dysregulated Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) signaling as a result of gain or loss of function mutations and or high circulating levels of inflammatory cytokines plays a key role in pathogenesis of MF. The JAK/STAT signaling pathway is involved in normal hematopoiesis (JAK2), inflammation (JAK1), and immune functions (JAK3). Upon binding of the ligand to its receptor, JAK becomes activated through phosphorylation of key tyrosine residues and which results in activation of the STAT, the mitogen-activated protein (MAP) and the 3-kinase-AKT (PI3-AKT) pathways [25-29], which in turn lead to cellular proliferation (Figure 2). In 2005, a gain-of-function mutation in the JAK2 gene was discovered in a majority (about 95%) of patients with PV, and in over 50% of patients with ET or PMF [30-33]. This mutation is a G to T nucleotide shift at position 1849 in exon 14 resulting in a valine to phenylalanine substitution at codon 617 of the JH2 auto-inhibitory domain of the protein [34]. The consequence of the JAK2V617F mutation is a loss of autoinhibitory control leading to a constitutively activated state of the JAK2 protein. Although, JAK2V617F is the most common mutation observed in MF patients, other gain-of-function mutations have been described. The second most frequent mutation (5-11%) occurs in the thrombopoietin receptor gene MPL (myeloproliferative leukemia virus oncogene), most commonly at codon 515 (W515L, W515K). Interestingly, rare cases have loss-of-function mutations in LNK or CBL, genes which potentially act as inhibitors of the JAK/STAT pathway.

Figure 2
The Janus kinase/signal transducers and activators of transcription (JAK/STAT) pathway [29]. Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2004;3:555-64, copyright 2004.

Despite these recent discoveries implicating dysregulation of the JAK/STAT pathway as critical in the pathogenesis of MF, the above described mutations may not be the initial oncogenic event. The strongest evidence supporting a pre-JAK2V617F oncogenic state is the observation that close to one-half of JAK2V617F-positive patients who progress to secondary acute myeloid leukemia do not have the JAK2 mutation in their blast cells. Even though the precise molecular pathogenesis of myoproliferative neoplasms (MPN) is still incomplete, the documented overactive JAK/STAT pathway is a potentially useful therapeutic target.

Therapeutic options for myelofibrosis

Allogeneic stem cell transplantation

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only curative treatment for patients with MF at present. Due to significant morbidity and mortality associated with HCT, divergent opinions have emerged about the application of HCT in MF. Significant regimen-related toxicities, graft failure and graft-versus-host disease are major barriers to the success of HCT in MF [35]. Use of reduced-intensity conditioning has helped to expand the applicability of HCT to older patients with MF. The trends from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) indicate a slow increase in the number of patients undergoing HCT in recent times [35]. However, in overall disease management, the option of HCT is applicable only to a small proportion of MF patients.

A large proportion of patients are not in the transplant age group at the time of diagnosis. Among younger patients, suitable related or unrelated donors are found in about 40-50% of cases. In our experience, the option of transplant in MF patients is used in approximately 5-10% of patients diagnosed with MF in Canada [VG, Princess Margaret Hospital, unpublished data].

Data from the most recent studies suggest that progression-free survival in the range of 40-50% at three years can be expected with HCT. The evolving role of HCT in the management of MF has recently been reviewed [35]. There is a suggestion from recent studies that DIPSS score may also be predictive of success after transplant [36].

HCT remains a valid option for patients in the transplant age group with adequate performance status and without any prohibitive comorbidities. The recommended indications for transplantation are expected survival less than five years, transfusion dependency, or an increased risk of leukemic transformation [35,37].

Non-transplant treatment options: conventional options

The goals of treatment in MF are to palliate symptoms and improve quality of life. Primarily this involves reducing spleen size, alleviating anemia and treating constitutional symptoms.

Splenomegaly is the most common and most challenging manifestation of MF [38]. Symptoms related to splenomegaly include pain, early satiety, portal hypertension and, less commonly, infarction and cytopenias [14]. Options for treatment of splenomegaly include medications, splenectomy or splenic radiation.

Hydroxyurea is the most frequently used agent for the treatment of splenomegaly in Canada, and results in clinical improvement in about 45-50% of cases [39-41]. Responses can take 2-3 months; responses meeting IWG-MRT criteria for clinical improvement are seldom achieved. Busulfan and cladribine are other agents occasionally employed to manage splenomegaly although less commonly due to concerns about serious adverse effects [38].

Splenectomy has been traditionally used to manage troublesome symptoms associated with splenomegaly. Some symptomatic MF patients benefit from this procedure, becoming transfusion-independent and having resolution of pain and improved constitutional symptoms [42], although the impact on survival appears to be minimal [42-44]. The main issue with splenectomy is perioperative morbidity (25%) and mortality (10%), which are substantial. Morbidity is mainly related to thrombotic complications, bleeding and sepsis [44]. In some patients, splenectomy is associated with compensatory hepatic enlargement.

Splenic irradiation has been used in selected patients for palliative purposes if splenomegaly is resistant to medication and a splenectomy is contraindicated due to advanced age or significant co-morbidities [45]. The doses used vary between 30-365 Gy in 5-10 fractions [45-47]. A temporary decrease in spleen size and resolution of abdominal discomfort are seen in some patients and can last 3-6 months [45,47]. Severe cytopenias are seen in about 12-35%; an increase in transfusion requirement occurs in approximately 40% of cases [45].

Anemia (hemoglobin < 100 g/L) is seen in >50% of MF patients as result of splenic sequestration, hypoplasia of hematopoietic stem cells, or bleeding from gastrointestinal sources [24,37,48]. Anemia and transfusion dependency are predictors of poor prognosis in MF [16]. Conventional treatment options include androgens, erythropoietic stimulating agents (ESAs) or immunomodulators either alone or in combination with prednisone (Table 3) [37,42].

Table 3
Summary of selected studies on use of conventional agents in the management of splenomegaly and anemia

The androgens oxymetholone and danazol are most widely employed in practice although only a few small studies have examined their use in MF [49-51] (Table 3). The largest study reported a response rate of 37% with danazol 600-800 mg/day tapered to the lowest dose after six months [51].

Several studies have reported on the use of epoietin alpha 100-200 U/kg administered three times/week either alone (Table 3) [52-54] or in combination with interferon-α-2b ± a short course of GM-CSF [55,56]. Response rates were comparable to those seen with androgens (about 53%; range 33-71%). The two largest studies employed a dose of 10,000 U three times/week [57,58]; response rates were 45% and 60%, respectively. Response was greater in females and patients with less severe anemia. The response rate was 40% in the only published study of darbapoetin-alpha 150-300 mcg/week in MF [59]. A major concern of these agents is that they may result in progression of splenomegaly. Erythropoietin is a reasonable treatment option for selected MF patients with anemia and low erythropoietin levels; if erythropoietin is used, careful monitoring of spleen size is required. There are no consistent mechanisms of coverage of costs of these agents between various provincial funding agencies for patients with MF in Canada.

Immunomodulators include thalidomide and the next-generation immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) lenalidomide and pomalidomide (Table 3). A pooled analysis of five thalidomide studies (n=62) reported a response rate of 29%, but 66% of patients discontinued within six months due to poor tolerability [60]. Lower response rates and poorer tolerability were found in subsequent phase II studies [61-63]. Tolerability may be improved if low-dose thalidomide (50 mg/day) is administered with prednisone [64]. The addition of cyclophosphamide or etanercept does not improve efficacy [65]. The most troublesome toxicity with thalidomide is neuropathy, with grade 3 severity occurring in up to 6% of patients [65]. Thalidomide is available in Canada through a special access program. Poor tolerability and significant side effects are major concerns about wider use in MF.

The overall response for anemia with lenalidomide 5-10 mg/day given either as monotherapy or with a prednisone taper was 19-30% in phase II trials [66-68]. Myelosuppression was the main toxicity, with 88% of patients in the ECOG E4903 trial developing ≥ grade 3 hematologic toxicity [68]. A subsequent reassessment of phase II trials using IWG-MFT criteria reported higher efficacy with lenalidomide compared to thalidomide (34-38% vs. 16%) [69]. The combination of lenalidomide plus prednisone produced a more durable response (median 34 months) compared to lenalidomide alone (7 months) or thalidomide (13 months) [69]. Case reports have suggested that hematologic response may be more robust in JAK2V617F-positive del(5q)-associated MF [70]. However, the isolated del5q- cytogenetic abnormality is not common in MF.

Pomalidomide has been evaluated in two consecutive phase II studies [71,72]. The response rate was 36% with pomalidomide 0.5 mg plus prednisone [71]. A second study reported a response only in JAK2V617F-positive patients [72]. A combined analysis of the two studies showed an overall anemia response of 27%. Response was greater (53%) in the absence of marked splenomegaly (≥10 cm), presence of <5% circulating blasts, or in the presence of JAK2V617F [73]. The discontinuation rate was 68% and 89% at one and two years, respectively. Ongoing phase III randomized, placebo-controlled trials will further define the role of pomalidomide in MF.

Constitutional symptoms, including fatigue, loss of body weight, night sweats and pruritus, have prognostic significance but conventional treatments are only modestly effective. No conventional treatment has been shown to be very effective in ameliorating constitutional symptoms. Low-dose prednisone may provide some benefit but results are usually transient [14]. A small pilot study of etanercept reported an improvement in constitutional symptoms in 60%, and a 20% objective response [74]; however, the limited data do not support the use of etanercept in routine clinical practice.

Other therapies

A number of small studies have reported a reduction in cytopenias with recombinant interferon-α (rIFNα) in MF, although toxicities have limited the duration of treatment [75,76]. Response rates were <10% in two phase II trials of rIFNα and pegylated rIFNα, respectively [77,78]. More recently, two retrospective series have reported a complete response and/or major response in about 30% of patients (EUMNET criteria) [79,80]. A reduction in JAK2V617F allele burden was also seen in 53% of PPV-MF patients treated with IFNα-2a for one year [81]. Interferon remains an investigational agent for MF, and the use of interferon outside the clinical trial setting is not recommended.

Limitations of conventional agents

The lack of well-designed prospective studies and limited treatment efficacy have been prohibitory factors in developing a consensus and defining the role of conventional agents in the management of MF. Moreover, the response criteria used in these studies are not uniform. None of these conventional agents has been shown to modify the natural history of the disease. Hydroxyurea, thalidomide, and low-dose prednisone are the most commonly used conventional treatment options in Canada. Splenectomy and splenic radiation are used in Canada in selected cases, although actual usage data are not available. The authors believe that among the various conventional agents, hydroxyurea may have some value in controlling some of the hyperproliferative symptoms associated with MF. There may be a select role for the use of IMiDs in alleviating anemia, and the anticipated results of randomized phase III trial of pomalidomide will further define the role of IMiDs in MF.

Novel therapeutic options

JAK1/2 inhibitor therapy

The availability of JAK1/2 inhibitor therapy is one of the most important developments in MF in recent years. The first-in-class JAK1/2 inhibitor, ruxolitinib (JAKAFI,TM JAKAVI®), has been approved by the FDA and Health Canada for patients with MF. Other JAK inhibitors are at various stages of clinical development. Ruxolitinib will be the most widely available JAK1/2 inhibitor for routine clinical use in patients with MF in the near future.

Ruxolitinib

Regulatory approval in the U.S. and Canada were obtained based on the results of two pivotal randomized phase III trials: Controlled Myelofibrosis Study with Oral JAK Inhibitor Treatment (COMFORT)-I in the U.S., Canada and Australia [82]; and COMFORT-II in Europe [83]. Both trials enrolled patients with primary, post-ET or post-PV myelofibrosis with INT-2 or High-risk disease as assessed by IPSS, and platelet count >100 x 109/L. In COMFORT-I, 309 patients were randomized 1:1 to ruxolitinib or placebo, whereas in COMFORT-II, 219 patients were randomized 2:1 to ruxolitinib or best available therapy (BAT).

In COMFORT-I, 41.9% of ruxolitinib patients had a ≥35% reduction in spleen size at 24 weeks versus 0.7% of placebo patients (p<0.001); 67.0% maintained this response for ≥48 weeks. There was a >50% improvement in symptom score at 24 weeks in 45.9% of ruxolitinib patients versus 5.3% of placebo patients (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in response among patients with or without the JAK2V617F gene mutation. The JAK2V617F allele burden was reduced by 21.5% at week 48. The survival analysis at 51 weeks’ median follow-up demonstrated increased mortality in the placebo arm (15.6% vs. 8.4%; p=0.04).

In COMFORT-II, 28% of ruxolitinib patients achieved the primary endpoint of ≥35% reduction in spleen size by MRI at week 48 compared with 0% with BAT (p<0.001); 80% maintained the response at a median 12-month follow-up. There was no difference in overall survival or leukemia-free survival, and no change was observed in bone marrow pathology. There does not appear to be any difference in leukemic transformation in patients treated with ruxolitinib when compared with control arms in the two trials.

A post hoc analysis of data from both trials found that there was no difference in outcomes between the placebo arm of COMFORT-I trial and the BAT arm of COMFORT-II trial [84]. Moreover, neither placebo nor BAT groups showed any clinically meaningful improvements in symptoms or quality of life.

Overall, ruxolitinib was well tolerated, with the main toxicity being hematological. In COMFORT-I, Grade 3-4 hematological effects occurring more frequently with ruxolitinib included anemia (45.2% vs. 19.2%), thrombocytopenia (12.9% vs. 1.3%), and neutropenia (7.1% vs. 2.0%). On average, ruxolitinib-treated patients had a hemoglobin nadir of 15-20 g/L below baseline at 8-12 weeks, stabilizing at an average reduction of about 10 g/L at 24 weeks [83]. Similar improvements in symptom scores were seen in ruxolitinib-treated patients with and without new grade 3-4 anemia. Thrombocytopenia led to dose modification in 41% of patients in COMFORT-II. Responses to ruxolitinib were not sustained following treatment discontinuation. Symptom scores returned to baseline within one week of discontinuation of ruxolitinib.

In clinical trials, a dose-adjustment strategy based on platelet count was used to minimize toxicity: the starting dose was 20 mg BID for platelet count >200 x 109/L and 15 mg BID for platelet count 100-200 x 109/L. A dose of 15 mg BID may also be considered in transfusion-independent patients, who may have difficulty tolerating a drop in hemoglobin of 20 g/L. In our personal experience, improvement of constitutional symptoms can be observed even at lower doses (5 mg BID). Dose reduction should be considered for patients receiving ruxolitinib 15 or 20 mg BID if the platelet count declines below 100. When treatment interruption is required, dose tapering is advised. Dose increases in increments of 5 mg BID can be considered on a monthly basis to a maximum dose of 25 mg BID in patients with inadequate response if no significant hematological toxicity occurs. Complete blood counts should be monitored at least every two weeks over the first two months until counts are stabilized.

Both COMFORT-I and COMFORT-II enrolled patients with platelet count >100 x 109/L. Approximately 25-30% of MF patients in need of JAK inhibitor therapy may have a platelet count <100 x109/L. Preliminary results of ongoing trials suggest that a starting dose of 5 mg BID followed by a dose escalation strategy is tolerable and efficacious for patients with platelet counts of 50-100 x 109/L [85]. The use of ruxolitinib in practice is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4
Tips on the use of ruxolitinib in routine clinical practice

Other JAK1/2 inhibitors in development

There are several other JAK1/2 inhibitors at various stages of clinical development (Table 5). Preliminary data from a phase I/II study of another JAK1/2 inhibitor, CYT387, demonstrated improvement in anemia, splenomegaly and constitutional symptoms; adverse events included first-dose hypotension, headache, and abnormal liver/pancreatic enzymes [86]. Also in development is the selective JAK2 inhibitor SAR302503 (formerly TG101348), which is currently being evaluated in a randomized placebo-controlled phase III trial of myelofibrosis. Phase I/II study results showed significant reductions in splenomegaly and improvements in symptom scores [87]. Adverse effects included anemia, thrombocytopenia, asymptomatic increases in amylase, nausea and diarrhea.

Table 5
Current status of JAK inhibitor therapy in myelofibrosis

In a phase II trial of pacritinib (SB1518), 44% had decreases of ≥50% in spleen size and 18% achieved clinical resolution of splenomegaly [88]. Adverse events included GI side effects, increased bilirubin, allergic reaction and nausea; one-third of patients required a dose reduction due to adverse effects. LY2784544 is a selective inhibitor of JAK2V617F/STAT5 signaling that is currently in phase I testing [89].

Apart from JAK1/2 inhibitors, several other novel agents are at various stages of clinical development. The most prominent are the third-generation IMiD pamolidomide (phase III); histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors such as panobinostat and givonostat (phase II); mTOR inhibitors (phase I/II); inhibitor of hedgehog pathway (Saridegib, phase I); AB0024, a monoclonal antibody inhibiting LOXL2 (phase I); and a TGF-b signaling inhibitor (phase 1).

Positioning of JAK1/2 inhibitor therapy in management of MF

Treatment of patients with myelofibrosis should be individualized based on DIPSS prognostic score and symptomatology [90] (Figures 3A, ,3B).3B). HCT should be considered for eligible patients with a DIPSS score of Int-2 or High-risk, or Int-1 risk patients who are transfusion-dependent or have a high risk of leukemic transformation. Management of non-HCT-eligible Int-2 or High-risk patients, and all Lowor Int-1-risk patients, is based on symptom assessment. Asymptomatic patients should be monitored regularly with assessments for symptoms and risk score. Ruxolitinib is the most effective commercially available medication for the management of constitutional symptoms and symptomatic splenomegaly and is appropriate first-line therapy for patients with these symptoms. Patients with significant cytopenias (transfusion-dependent anemia or cytopenias) should ideally be enrolled in future clinical trials, if available. Use of hydroxyurea, ESA, danazol and splenectomy may be considered on a case-by-case basis if access to JAK1/2 inhibitor therapy is not available. Splenectomy will remain a useful option for select patients with MF, who are either resistant to or unable to tolerate JAK1/2 inhibitor therapy.

Figure 3
Management of patients with: (A) Low/Int-1 myelofibrosis; and (B) Int-2/High-risk myelofibrosis [35]. Used with permission.

Summary

MF is a rare chronic hematological malignancy. It is important that patients be referred for a consultation to a center with expertise in the management of MPN. Given the long natural history of this disease, a shared-care model (where the community physician and the MF specialist jointly manage the patient with MF) may serve the unmet needs of these patients in an optimal way. Risk stratification is vital for choosing an optimal treatment strategy, and should be done at the time of diagnosis and reviewed periodically during follow-up to identify a change in risk profile. The goals of therapy for each patient need to be defined up front, taking into consideration factors such as age, symptom burden, predicted risk of mortality and leukemic transformation, availability of donors and personal risk tolerance. Therapy should be individualized and should include a spectrum of choices ranging from watchful waiting to drug therapy or HCT.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the assistance of Steven Manners of Communications Lansdowne, whose help was made possible through funding from Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Declaration of conflicts of interest

VG: clinical trial research funding from Incyte, Novartis, Celgene, YM Biosciences, and Sanofi-Aventis; served on advisory board of Incyte, Novartis, YM Biosciences, and Sanofi-Aventis; consulting fees from Novartis, Incyte, YM Biosciences, and Sanofi-Aventis. LF: clinical trial research funding from Incyte, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis; served on advisory board of Novartis; consulting fees from Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis. SS: clinical trial research funding from Novartis, YM Biosciences, and Sanofi-Aventis; served on advisory board of Novartis, Celgene; consulting fees from Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis. LB: clinical trial research from Sanofi-Aventis; research funding from Novartis; served on advisory board of Novartis. ART: clinical trial research funding from Novartis and Celgene; served on advisory board for Novartis.

References

1. McNally RJ, Rowland D, Roman E, Cartwright RA. Age and sex distributions of hematological malignancies in the UK. Hematol Oncol. 1997;15:173–189. [PubMed]
2. Mesa RA, Silverstein MN, Jacobsen SJ, Wollan PC, Tefferi A. Population-based incidence and survival figures in essential thrombocythemia and agnogenic myeloid metaplasia: an Olmsted County Study, 1976-1995. Am J Hematol. 1999;61:10–15. [PubMed]
3. Landgren O, Goldin LR, Kristinsson SY, Helgadottir EA, Samuelsson J, Björkholm M. Increased risks of polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and myelofibrosis among 24,577 first-degree relatives of 11,039 patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms in Sweden. Blood. 2008;112:2199–2204. [PubMed]
4. Cervantes F, Dupriez B, Pereira A, Passamonti F, Reilly JT, Morra E, Vannucchi AM, Mesa RA, Demory JL, Barosi G, Rumi E, Tefferi A. New prognostic scoring system for primary myelofibrosis based on a study of the International Working Group for Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment. Blood. 2009;113:2895–2901. [PubMed]
5. Vardiman JW, Thiele J, Arber DA, Brunning RD, Borowitz MJ, Porwit A, Harris NL, Le Beau MM, Hellström-Lindberg E, Tefferi A, Bloomfield CD. The 2008 revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia: rationale and important changes. Blood. 2009;114:937–951. [PubMed]
6. Barosi G, Mesa RA, Thiele J, Cervantes F, Campbell PJ, Verstovsek S, Dupriez B, Levine RL, Passamonti F, Gotlib J, Reilly JT, Vannucchi AM, Hanson CA, Solberg LA, Orazi A, Tefferi A. International Working Group for Myelofibrosis Research Treatment (IWG-MRT) Proposed criteria for the diagnosis of post-polycythemia vera and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis: a consensus statement from the international working group for myelofibrosis research and treatment. Leukemia. 2008;22:437–438. [PubMed]
7. Tefferi A. Myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1255–1265. [PubMed]
8. Tefferi A, Vaidya R, Caramazza D, Finke C, Lasho T, Pardanani A. Circulating interleukin (IL)-8, IL-2R, IL-12, and IL-15 levels are independently prognostic in primary myelofibrosis: a comprehensive cytokine profiling study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011;29:1356–1363. [PubMed]
9. Mesa RA, Niblack J, Wadleigh M, Verstovsek S, Camoriano J, Barnes S, Tan AD, Atherton PJ, Sloan JA, Tefferi A. The burden of fatigue and quality of life in myeloproliferative disorders (MPDs): an international Internet-based survey of 1179 MPD patients. Cancer. 2007;109:68–76. [PubMed]
10. Kiladjian J-J, Gisslinger H, Passamonti F, Niederwieser D, Mendelson E, Sirulnik LA, Copley-Merriman K, Zhou X, Levy RS, Knoops L, Cervantes F, Barbui T, Barosi G, Vannucchi AM, Harrison CN. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden in patients (Pts) with myelofibrosis (MF) in the COMFORT-II study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012;30:6626.
11. Guilpain P, Montani D, Damaj G, Achouh L, Lefrère F, Le Pavec J, Marfaing-Koka A, Dartevelle P, Simonneau G, Humbert M, Hermine O. Pulmonary hypertension associated with myeloproliferative disorders: a retrospective study of ten cases. Respiration. 2008;76:295–302. [PubMed]
12. Abu-Hilal M, Tawaker J. Portal hypertension secondary to myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia: a study of 13 cases. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:3128–3133. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. Passamonti F, Cervantes F, Vannucchi AM, Morra E, Rumi E, Pereira A, Guglielmelli P, Pungolino E, Caramella M, Maffioli M, Pascutto C, Lazzarino M, Cazzola M, Tefferi A. A dynamic prognostic model to predict survival in primary myelofibrosis: a study by the IWG-MRT (International Working Group for Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment) Blood. 2010;115:1703–1708. [PubMed]
14. Vannucchi AM. Management of myelofibrosis. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2011;2011:222–230. [PubMed]
15. Gangat N, Caramazza D, Vaidya R, George G, Begna K, Schwager S, Van Dyke D, Hanson C, Wu W, Pardanani A, Cervantes F, Passamonti F, Tefferi A. DIPSS Plus: A refined dynamic international prognostic scoring system for primary myelofibrosis that incorporates prognostic information from karyotype, platelet count, and transfusion status. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011;29:392–397. [PubMed]
16. Elena C, Passamonti F, Rumi E, Malcovati L, Arcaini L, Boveri E, Merli M, Pietra D, Pascutto C, Lazzarino M. Red blood cell transfusion-dependency implies a poor survival in primary myelofibrosis irrespective of IPSS and DIPSS. Haematologica. 2011;96:167–170. [PubMed]
17. Hidaka T, Shide K, Shimoda H, Kameda T, Toyama K, Katayose K, Kubuki Y, Nagata K, Takenaka K, Akashi K, Okamura T, Niho Y, Mizoguchi H, Omine M, Ozawa K, Harada M, Shimoda K. The impact of cytogenetic abnormalities on the prognosis of primary myelofibrosis: a prospective survey of 202 cases in Japan. Eur J Haematol. 2009;83:328–333. [PubMed]
18. Hussein K, Pardanani AD, Van Dyke DL, Hanson CA, Tefferi A. International Prognostic Scoring System-independent cytogenetic risk categorization in primary myelofibrosis. Blood. 2010;115:496–499. [PubMed]
19. Tam CS, Abruzzo LV, Lin KI, Cortes J, Lynn A, Keating MJ, Thomas DA, Pierce S, Kantarjian H, Verstovsek S. The role of cytogenetic abnormalities as a prognostic marker in primary myelofibrosis: applicability at the time of diagnosis and later during disease course. Blood. 2009;113:4171–4178. [PubMed]
20. Tefferi A, Mesa RA, Schroeder G, Hanson CA, Li CY, Dewald GW. Cytogenetic findings and their clinical relevance in myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. Br J Haematol. 2001;113:763–771. [PubMed]
21. Strasser-Weippl K, Steurer M, Kees M, Augustin F, Tzankov A, Dirnhofer S, Fiegl M, Gisslinger H, Zojer N, Ludwig H. Chromosome 7 deletions are associated with unfavorable prognosis in myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. Blood. 2005;105:4146. [PubMed]
22. Caramazza D, Begna KH, Gangat N, Vaidya R, Siragusa S, Van Dyke DL, Hanson C, Pardanani A, Tefferi A. Refined cytogenetic-risk categorization for overall and leukemia-free survival in primary myelofibrosis: a single center study of 433 patients. Leukemia. 2011;25:82–88. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
23. Haferlach T, Bacher U, Kern W, Schnittger S, Haferlach C. The diagnosis of BCR/ABL-negative chronic myeloproliferative diseases (CMPD): a comprehensive approach based on morphology, cytogenetics, and molecular markers. Ann Hematol. 2008;87:1–10. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Tefferi A, Lasho T, Jimma T. One thousand patients with primary myelofibrosis: the Mayo Clinic experience. Mayo Clinic Proc. 2012;87:25–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
25. Ihle JN, Gilliland DG. JAK2: normal function and role in hematopoietic disorders. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2007;17:8–14. [PubMed]
26. Delhommeau F, Dupont S, Tonetti C, Massé A, Godin I, Le Couedic JP, Debili N, Saulnier P, Casadevall N, Vainchenker W, Giraudier S. Evidence that the JAK2 G1849T (V617F) mutation occurs in a lymphomyeloid progenitor in polycythemia vera and idiopathic myelofibrosis. Blood. 2007;109:71–77. [PubMed]
27. Jamieson CH, Gotlib J, Durocher JA, Chao MP, Mariappan MR, Lay M, Jones C, Zehnder JL, Lilleberg SL, Weissman IL. The JAK2 V617F mutation occurs in hematopoietic stem cells in polycythemia vera and predisposes toward erythroid differentiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:6224–6229. [PubMed]
28. Khwaja A. The role of Janus kinases in haemopoiesis and haematological malignancy. Br J Haematol. 2006;134:366–384. [PubMed]
29. O’Shea JJ, Pesu M, Borie DC, Changelian PS. A new modality for immunosuppression: targeting the JAK/STAT pathway. Nat Rev Drug Discover. 2004;3:555–564. [PubMed]
30. James C, Ugo V, Le Couédic JP, Staerk J, Delhommeau F, Lacout C, Garçon L, Raslova H, Berger R, Bennaceur-Griscelli A, Villeval JL, Constantinescu SN, Casadevall N, Vainchenker W. A unique clonal JAK2 mutation leading to constitutive signalling causes polycythaemia vera. Nature. 2005;434:1144–1148. [PubMed]
31. Baxter EJ, Scott LM, Campbell PJ, East C, Fourouclas N, Swanton S, Vassiliou GS, Bench AJ, Boyd EM, Curtin N, Scott MA, Erber WN, Green AR. Cancer Genome Project. Acquired mutation of the tyrosine kinase JAK2 in human myeloproliferative disorders. Lancet. 2005;365:1054–1061. [PubMed]
32. Kralovics R, Passamonti F, Buser AS, Teo SS, Tiedt R, Passweg JR, Tichelli A, Cazzola M, Skoda RC. A gain-of function mutation of JAK2 in myeloproliferative disorders. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1779–1790. [PubMed]
33. Levine RL, Wadleigh M, Cools J, Ebert BL, Wernig G, Huntly BJ, Boggon TJ, Wlodarska I, Clark JJ, Moore S, Adelsperger J, Koo S, Lee JC, Gabriel S, Mercher T, D'Andrea A, Fröhling S, Döhner K, Marynen P, Vandenberghe P, Mesa RA, Tefferi A, Griffin JD, Eck MJ, Sellers WR, Meyerson M, Golub TR, Lee SJ, Gilliland DG. Activating mutation in the tyrosine kinase JAK2 in polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and myeloid metaplasia with myelofibrosis. Cancer Cell. 2005;7:387–397. [PubMed]
34. Vannucchi AM, Guglielmelli P, Tefferi A. Advances in understanding and management of myeloproliferative neoplasms. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:171–191. [PubMed]
35. Gupta V, Hari P, Hoffman R. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for myelofibrosis in the era of JAK inhibitors. Blood. 2012;120:1367–1379. [PubMed]
36. Scott BL, Gooley TA, Sorror ML, Rezvani AR, Linenberger ML, Grim J, Sandmaier BM, Myerson D, Chauncey TR, Storb R, Buxhofer-Ausch V, Radich JP, Appelbaum FR, Deeg HJ. The Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System for myelofibrosis predicts outcomes after hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood. 2012;119:2657–2664. [PubMed]
37. Barbui T, Barosi G, Birgegard G, Cervantes F, Finazzi G, Griesshammer M, Harrison C, Hasselbalch HC, Hehlmann R, Hoffman R, Kiladjian JJ, Kröger N, Mesa R, McMullin MF, Pardanani A, Passamonti F, Vannucchi AM, Reiter A, Silver RT, Verstovsek S, Tefferi A. European LeukemiaNet. Philadelphia-negative classical myeloproliferative neoplasms: critical concepts and management recommendations from European LeukemiaNet. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011;29:761–770. [PubMed]
38. Mesa RA. How I treat symptomatic splenomegaly in patients with myelofibrosis. Blood. 2009;113:5394–5400. [PubMed]
39. Lofvenberg E, Wahlin A. Management of polycythaemia vera, essential thrombocythaemia and myelofibrosis with hydroxyurea. Eur J Haematol. 1988;41:375–381. [PubMed]
40. Martinez-Trillos A, Gaya A, Maffioli M, Arellano-Rodrigo E, Calvo X, Díaz-Beyá M, Cervantes F. Efficacy and tolerability of hydroxyurea in the treatment of the hyperproliferative manifestations of myelofibrosis: results in 40 patients. Ann Hematol. 2010;89:1233–1237. [PubMed]
41. Manoharan A. Management of myelofibrosis with intermittent hydroxyurea. Br J Haematol. 1991;77:252–254. [PubMed]
42. Tefferi A. How I treat myelofibrosis. Blood. 2011;117:3494–3504. [PubMed]
43. Tefferi A, Mesa RA, Nagorney DM, Schroeder G, Silverstein MN. Splenectomy in myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia: a single-institution experience with 223 patients. Blood. 2000;95:2226–2233. [PubMed]
44. Mesa RA, Nagorney DS, Schwager S, Allred J, Tefferi A. Palliative goals, patient selection, and perioperative platelet management: outcomes and lessons from 3 decades of splenectomy for myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia at the Mayo Clinic. Cancer. 2006;107:361–370. [PubMed]
45. Elliott MA, Chen MG, Silverstein MN, Tefferi A. Splenic irradiation for symptomatic splenomegaly associated with myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. Br J Haematol. 1998;103:505–511. [PubMed]
46. Elliott MA, Tefferi A. Splenic irradiation in myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia: a review. Blood Rev. 1999;13:163–170. [PubMed]
47. Bouabdallah R, Coso D, Gonzague-Casabianca L, Alzieu C, Resbeut M, Gastaut JA. Safety and efficacy of splenic irradiation in the treatment of patients with idiopathic myelofibrosis: a report on 15 patients. Leuk Res. 2000;24:491–495. [PubMed]
48. Barosi G, Lupo L, Rosti V. Management of myeloproliferative neoplasms: from academic guidelines to clinical practice. Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2012;7:50–56. [PubMed]
49. Hast R, Engstedt L, Jameson S, Killander A, Lundh B, Reizenstein P, Skårberg KO, Udén AM, Wadman B. Oxymetholone treatment in myelofibrosis. Blut. 1978;37:19–26. [PubMed]
50. Cervantes F, Hernández-Boluda JC, Alvarez A, Nadal E, Montserrat E. Danazol treatment of idiopathic myelofibrosis with severe anemia. Haematologica. 2000;85:595–599. [PubMed]
51. Cervantes F, Alvarez-Larrán A, Domingo A, Arellano-Rodrigo E, Montserrat E. Efficacy and tolerability of danazol as a treatment for the anaemia of myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia: long-term results in 30 patients. Br J Haematol. 2005;129:771–775. [PubMed]
52. Rodríguez JN, Martino ML, Diéguez JC, Prados D. rHuEpo for the treatment of anemia in myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. Experience in 6 patients and meta-analytical approach. Haematologica. 1998;83:616–621. [PubMed]
53. Rafanelli D, Grossi A, Longo G, Vannucchi AM, Bacci P, Ferrini PR. Recombinant human erythropoietin for treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes. Leukemia. 1992;6:323–327. [PubMed]
54. Aloe Spiriti M, Latagliata R, Avvisati G, Battistel V, Montefusco E, Spadea A, Petti MC. Erythropoietin treatment of idiopathic myelofibrosis. Haematologica. 1993;78:371–373. [PubMed]
55. Bourantas KL, Tsiara S, Christou L, Repousis P, Konstantinidou P, Bai M, Seferiadis K. Combination therapy with recombinant human erythropoietin, interferon-alpha-2b and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in idiopathic myelofibrosis. Acta Haematol. 1996;96:79–82. [PubMed]
56. Hasselbalch HC, Clausen NT, Jensen BA. Successful treatment of anemia in idiopathic myelofibrosis with recombinant human erythropoietin. Am J Hematol. 2002;70:92–99. [PubMed]
57. Cervantes F, Alvarez-Larrán A, Hernández-Boluda JC, Sureda A, Torrebadell M, Montserrat E. Erythropoietin treatment of the anaemia of myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia: results in 20 patients and review of the literature. Br J Haematol. 2004;127:399–403. [PubMed]
58. Tsiara SN, Chaidos A, Bourantas LK, Kapsali HD, Bourantas KL. Recombinant human erythropoietin for the treatment of anaemia in patients with chronic idiopathic myelofibrosis. Acta Haematol. 2007;117:156–161. [PubMed]
59. Cervantes F, Alvarez-Larrán A, Hernández-Boluda JC, Sureda A, Granell M, Vallansot R, Besses C, Montserrat E. Darbepoetin-alpha for the anaemia of myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. Br J Haematol. 2006;134:184–186. [PubMed]
60. Barosi G, Elliott M, Canepa L, Ballerini F, Piccaluga PP, Visani G, Marchetti M, Pozzato G, Zorat F, Tefferi A. Thalidomide in myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia: a pooled-analysis of individual patient data from five studies. Leuk Lymphoma. 2002;43:2301–2307. [PubMed]
61. Thomas DA, Giles FJ, Albitar M, Cortes JE, Verstovsek S, Faderl S, O'Brien SM, Garcia-Manero G, Keating MJ, Pierce S, Zeldis J, Kantarjian HM. Thalidomide therapy for myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. Cancer. 2006;106:1974–1984. [PubMed]
62. Abgrall JF, Guibaud I, Bastie JN, Flesch M, Rossi JF, Lacotte-Thierry L, Boyer F, Casassus P, Slama B, Berthou C, Rodon P, Leporrier M, Villemagne B, Himberlin C, Ghomari K, Larosa F, Rollot F, Dugay J, Allard C, Maigre M, Isnard F, Zerbib R, Cauvin JM. Groupe Ouest-Est Leucémies et Maladies du Sang (GOELAMS) Thalidomide versus placebo in myeloid metaplasia with myelofibrosis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study. Haematologica. 2006;91:1027–1032. [PubMed]
63. Marchetti M, Barosi G, Balestri F, Viarengo G, Gentili S, Barulli S, Demory JL, Ilariucci F, Volpe A, Bordessoule D, Grossi A, Le Bousse-Kerdiles MC, Caenazzo A, Pecci A, Falcone A, Broccia G, Bendotti C, Bauduer F, Buccisano F, Dupriez B. Low-dose thalidomide ameliorates cytopenias and splenomegaly in myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia: a phase II trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004;22:424–431. [PubMed]
64. Mesa RA, Steensma DP, Pardanani A, Li CY, Elliott M, Kaufmann SH, Wiseman G, Gray LA, Schroeder G, Reeder T, Zeldis JB, Tefferi A. A phase 2 trial of combination low-dose thalidomide and prednisone for the treatment of myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. Blood. 2003;101:2534–2541. [PubMed]
65. Thapaliya P, Tefferi A, Pardanani A, Steensma DP, Camoriano J, Wu W, Geyer S, Mesa RA. International working group for myelofibrosis research and treatment response assessment and long-term follow-up of 50 myelofibrosis patients treated with thalidomide-prednisone based regimens. Am J Hematol. 2011;86:96–98. [PubMed]
66. Tefferi A, Cortes J, Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Thomas D, Lasho TL, Hogan WJ, Litzow MR, Allred JB, Jones D, Byrne C, Zeldis JB, Ketterling RP, McClure RF, Giles F, Kantarjian HM. Lenalidomide therapy in myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. Blood. 2006;108:1158–1164. [PubMed]
67. Quintás-Cardama A, Kantarjian HM, Manshouri T, Thomas D, Cortes J, Ravandi F, Garcia-Manero G, Ferrajoli A, Bueso-Ramos C, Verstovsek S. Lenalidomide plus prednisone results in durable clinical, histopathologic, and molecular responses in patients with myelofibrosis. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009;27:4760–4766. [PubMed]
68. Mesa RA, Yao X, Cripe LD, Litzow M, Paietta E, Rowe JM, Tefferi A, Tallman MS. Lenalidomide and prednisone for myelofibrosis: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) phase 2 trial E4903. Blood. 2010;116:4436–4438. [PubMed]
69. Jabbour E, Thomas D, Kantarjian H, Zhou L, Pierce S, Cortes J, Verstovsek S. Comparison of thalidomide and lenalidomide as therapy for myelofibrosis. Blood. 2011;118:899–902. [PubMed]
70. Tefferi A, Lasho TL, Mesa RA, Pardanani A, Ketterling RP, Hanson CA. Lenalidomide therapy in del(5)(q31)-associated myelofibrosis: Cytogenetic and JAK2V617F molecular remissions. Leukemia. 2007;21:1827–1828. [PubMed]
71. Tefferi A, Verstovsek S, Barosi G, Passamonti F, Roboz GJ, Gisslinger H, Paquette RL, Cervantes F, Rivera CE, Deeg HJ, Thiele J, Kvasnicka HM, Vardiman JW, Zhang Y, Bekele BN, Mesa RA, Gale RP, Kantarjian HM. Pomalidomide is active in the treatment of anemia associated with myelofibrosis. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009;27:4563–4569. [PubMed]
72. Begna KH, Mesa RA, Pardanani A, Hogan WJ, Litzow MR, McClure RF, Tefferi A. A phase-2 trial of low dose pomalidomide in myelofibrosis. Leukemia. 2011;25:301–304. [PubMed]
73. Begna KH, Pardanani A, Mesa R, Litzow MR, Hogan WJ, Hanson CA, Tefferi A. Long-term outcome of pomalidomide therapy in myelofibrosis. Am J Hematol. 2012;87:66–68. [PubMed]
74. Steensma DP, Mesa RA, Li CY, Gray L, Tefferi A. Etanercept, a soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor, palliates constitutional symptoms in patients with myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia: results of a pilot study. Blood. 2002;99:2252–2254. [PubMed]
75. Barosi G, Liberato LN, Costa A, Ascari E. Cytoreductive effect of recombinant alpha interferon in patients with myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. Blut. 1989;58:271–274. [PubMed]
76. Barosi G, Liberato LN, Costa A, Buratti A, Di Dio F, Salvatore S, Ascari E. Induction and maintenance alpha-interferon therapy in myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. Eur J Haematol Suppl. 1990;52:12–14. [PubMed]
77. Radin AI, Kim HT, Grant BW, Bennett JM, Kirkwood JM, Stewart JA, Hahn RG, Dutcher JP, Wiernik PH, Oken MM. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Phase II study of alpha2 interferon in the treatment of the chronic myeloproliferative disorders (E5487): a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Cancer. 2003;98:100–109. [PubMed]
78. Jabbour E, Kantarjian H, Cortes J, Thomas D, Garcia-Manero G, Ferrajoli A, Faderl S, Richie MA, Beran M, Giles F, Verstovsek S. PEG-IFN-alpha-2b therapy in BCR-ABL-negative myeloproliferative disorders: final result of a phase 2 study. Cancer. 2007;110:2012–2018. [PubMed]
79. Ianotto JC, Kiladjian JJ, Demory JL, Roy L, Boyer F, Rey J, Dupriez B, Berthou C, Abgrall JF. PEG-IFN-alpha-2a therapy in patients with myelofibrosis: a study of the French Groupe d'Etudes des Myelofibroses (GEM) and France Intergroupe des syndromes Myéloprolifératifs (FIM) Br J Haematol. 2009;146:223–225. [PubMed]
80. Gowin K, Thapaliya P, Samuelsson J, Harrison C, Radia D, Andreasson B, Mascarenhas J, Rambaldi A, Barbui T, Rea C, Camoriano J, Gentry A, Kiladjian JJ, O' Connell C, Mesa R. Experience with pegylated Interferon alpha-2a in advanced myeloproliferative neoplasms in an international cohort of 118 patients. Haematologica. 2012 [PubMed]
81. Bai J, Xue YP, Zhang L, Li CH, Fan DM, Li B, Xu SC, Li DP, Sun XJ, Jiang B, Yang RC. Interferon-alpha-2b induces molecular responses of patients with polycythemia vera and its post-polycythemic myelofibrosis. Zhongguo Shi Yan Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2011;19:444–449. [PubMed]
82. Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Gotlib J, Levy RS, Gupta V, DiPersio JF, Catalano JV, Deininger M, Miller C, Silver RT, Talpaz M, Winton EF, Harvey JH Jr, Arcasoy MO, Hexner E, Lyons RM, Paquette R, Raza A, Vaddi K, Erickson-Viitanen S, Koumenis IL, Sun W, Sandor V, Kantarjian HM. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:799–807. [PubMed]
83. Harrison C, Kiladjian J-J, Al-Ali HK, Gisslinger H, Waltzman R, Stalbovskaya V, McQuitty M, Hunter DS, Levy R, Knoops L, Cervantes F, Vannucchi AM, Barbui T, Barosi G. JAK inhibition with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy for myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:787–798. [PubMed]
84. Mesa RA, Verstovsek S, Cervantes F, Waltzman RJ, Mendelson ET, Martin N, Sun W, Sandor VA, Levy RS, Harrison CN. Comparison of the efficacy of placebo and best available therapy for the treatment of myelofibrosis in the COMFORT studies; Presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology; December 10-13, 2011; San Diego CA. abstract 1753.
85. Talpaz M, Hamburg SI, Jamieson K, Terebelo HR, Afrin L, Winton EF, Scola MA, Lyons RM, Harvey JH, Holmes CE, Ortega GL, Prchal JT, Silver RT, Baer MR, Erickson-Viitanen SK, O'Neill P, Peng W, Leopold L, Kantarjian H, Verstovsek S. Preliminary safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients (pts) with primary and secondary myelofibrosis (MF) with platelet counts (PC) of 50-100x109/L; Presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting; June 1-5, 2012; Chicago IL. abstract 6630.
86. Pardanani A, Gotlib J, Gupta V, Roberts AW, Wadleigh M, Sirhan S, Litzow MR, Hogan WJ, Begna K, Smith G, Bavisotto LM, Kowalski M, Tefferi A. An expanded multicenter phase I/II study of CYT387, a JAK-1/2 inhibitor for the treatment of myelofibrosis; Presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology; December 10-13, 2011; San Diego CA. abstract 3849.
87. Pardanani A, Gotlib J, Jamieson C, Cortes JE, Talpaz M, Stone R, Gao G, Zhang J, Neumann F, Tefferi A. SAR302503: Interim safety, efficacy and long-term impact on JAK2 V617F allele burden in a phase I/II study in patients with myelofibrosis; Presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology; December 10-13, 2011; San Diego CA. abstract 3838.
88. Komrokji RS, Wadleigh M, Seymour JF, Roberts AW, To LB, Zhu HJ, Mesa RA. Results of a phase 2 study of pacritinib (SB1518), a novel oral JAK2 inhibitor, in patients with primary, post-polycythemia vera, and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis; Presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology; December 10-13, 2011; San Diego CA. abstract 282.
89. Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Rhoades SK, Giles JLK, Pitou C, Jones E, Walgren RA, Prchal JT. Phase I study of the JAK2 V617f inhibitor, LY2784544, in patients with myelofibrosis (MF), polycythemia vera (PV), and essential thrombocythemia (ET); Presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology; December 10-13, 2011; San Diego CA. abstract 2814.
90. Tefferi A, Pardanani A, Gangat N, Begna KH, Hanson CA, Van Dyke DL, Caramazza D, Vannucchi AM, Morra E, Cazzola M, Pereira A, Cervantes F, Passamonti F. Leukemia risk models in primary myelofibrosis: an International Working Group study. Leukemia. 2012;26:1439–1441. [PubMed]
91. Verstovsek S, Kantarjian H, Mesa RA, Pardanani AD, Cortes-Franco J, Thomas DA, Estrov Z, Fridman JS, Bradley EC, Erickson-Viitanen S, Vaddi K, Levy R, Tefferi A. Safety and efficacy of INCB018424, a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1117–1127. [PubMed]
92. Pardanani A, Gotlib JR, Jamieson C, Cortes JE, Talpaz M, Stone RM, Silverman MH, Gilliland DG, Shorr J, Tefferi A. Safety and efficacy of TG101348, a selective JAK2 inhibitor, in myelofibrosis. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011;29:789–796. [PubMed]
93. Santos FP, Kantarjian HM, Jain N, Manshouri T, Thomas DA, Garcia-Manero G, Kennedy D, Estrov Z, Cortes J, Verstovsek S. Phase 2 study of CEP-701, an orally available JAK2 inhibitor, in patients with primary or post-polycythemia vera/essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis. Blood. 2010;115:1131–1136. [PubMed]
94. Purandare AV, McDevitt TM, Wan H, You D, Penhallow B, Han X, Vuppugalla R, Zhang Y, Ruepp SU, Trainor GL, Lombardo L, Pedicord D, Gottardis MM, Ross-Macdonald P, de Silva H, Hosbach J, Emanuel SL, Blat Y, Fitzpatrick E, Taylor TL, McIntyre KW, Michaud E, Mulligan C, Lee FY, Woolfson A, Lasho TL, Pardanani A, Tefferi A, Lorenzi MV. Characterization of BMS-911543, a functionally selective small-molecule inhibitor of JAK2. Leukemia. 2012;26:280–288. [PubMed]

Articles from American Journal of Blood Research are provided here courtesy of e-Century Publishing Corporation