1 / 28

ET vs. Prefibrotic myelofibrosis : Why does it matter

ET vs. Prefibrotic myelofibrosis : Why does it matter. Tiziano BARBUI,MD Hematology and Research Foundation, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital Bergamo, Italy

taima
Download Presentation

ET vs. Prefibrotic myelofibrosis : Why does it matter

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ET vs. Prefibroticmyelofibrosis: Why does it matter • Tiziano BARBUI,MD • Hematology and Research Foundation, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital • Bergamo, Italy • European Focus on Myeloproliferative Neoplasms and Myelodysplastic Syndromes 5-7 April 2013, Madrid, Spain

  2. “True ET” “Prefibrotic PMF” WHO Classification Distinguishing ET from PMF ET

  3. Three important components to the process of developing classification of Hema Malignancies First,use morphology, immunophenotype, genetic features, and clinical features to define diseases. Second principle is that classification relies on building a consensus among as many experts as possible on the definition and nomenclature of the disease. Third, while pathologists must take primary responsibility for developing a primary classification, involvement of clinicians is essential to ensure its usefulness and acceptance in daily practice.

  4. Morphology in «true ET» and in prefibrotic myelofibrosis

  5. ET and early PMF: different biology? The molecular mechanisms underlying the development of histological features such as megakaryocyte clustering, are unclear. The cellularity factor, correlates with whether the patient has the JAK2 V617 mutation (Wilkins et al Blood 2008;111:60-70) JAK2V617F allele burden discriminates ET from early PMF (Hussein K et al.,Exp.Hematology 37,1186,2009) About the molecular regulation of megakaryocyte location and clustering, it may be relevant that megakaryocyte clusters are observed in mice treated with SDF-1, the ligand for the CXCR4 receptor. (Avecill et al. Nat Med. 2004;10:64-71) Patients with pre-fibrotic PMF have a pattern of proplatelet formation similar to fibrotic PMF and different from that of «true» ET (Balduini A,PLoSOne, 2011)

  6. Different presentation and outcomes? True ET PMF Seven international centers Inclusion criteria: local ET diagnosis (from 1975 to 2008) and pre-treatment Bone Marrow biopsy obtained at time of diagnosis (or within 1 year of diagnosis in untreated patients) 1,104 ET patients WHO 2008 review by WHO author (JT) completely blinded to outcome data Barbui et al, J ClinOncol. 2011 Aug 10;29(23):3179-84

  7. Main characteristics at diagnosis

  8. Disease complications during follow-upWHO ET: 6.2 yrs (range 0-27); WHO early prefibrotic PMF: 7 yrs (range 0-27) Barbui et al, JCO 2011

  9. Thrombosis-free survival ET vs PMF 1.00 0.75 0.50 ET PMF P-value = 0.69 0.25 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 Years from diagnosis Events 73 39 13 10 At risk 585 278 129 45 Barbui et al, JCO 2011

  10. Doesitmatter to predicthematologictransformations? Incidence of AML Survival, LeukemicTransformation and FibroticProgression in EssentialThrombocythemia are significantlyinfluenced by Accurate MorphologicDiagnosis OS Incidence of MF Barbui et al, J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 10;29(23):3179-84

  11. *EUROSTAT 2008 (crude death rates, all causes of death, EU 27 countries) Barbui et al, JCO 2011

  12. Survival in patients categorized by different stages of primary myelofibrosis Barosi et al, PlosOne 2012,7,4.

  13. Three important components to the process of developing classification of Hema Malignancies First, recognising that the underlying causes of the neoplasm are often unknown and may vary. So, we use morphology, immunophenotype, genetic features, and clinical features to define diseases. Second principle is that classification relies on building a consensus among as many experts as possible on the definition and nomenclature of the disease. Third, while pathologists must take primary responsibility for developing a primary classification, involvement of clinicians is essential to ensure its usefulness and acceptance in daily practice.

  14. Criticismto histopathology in early stage PMF and ET Poor reproducibility and debate on the nomenclature Morphological criteria are impaired by subjectivity their value in predicting clinical outcome is not yet consistently proven In pathology, the typing and subtyping of most diseases should have a high degree of interobserverreliability and may be inadequate for routine clinical use Classifications which cannot guarantee this reliability must be reconsidered. Wilkins et al., Blood 2008;Brousseau et al Histopathology 2010; Buhr et al, Haematologica 2012; Koopman et al,Am J Clin Pathol. 2011

  15. Three important components to the process of developing classification of Hema Malignancies First, recognising that the underlying causes of the neoplasm are often unknown and may vary. So, we use morphology, immunophenotype, genetic features, and clinical features to define diseases. Second principle is that classification relies on building a consensus among as many experts as possible on the definition and nomenclature of the disease. Third, while pathologists must take primary responsibility for developing a primary classification, involvement of clinicians is essential to ensure its usefulness and acceptance in daily practice.

  16. Risk factors for thrombosis in ET (PVSG diagnosis) Cox Multivariable Analysis HB HCT PLT WBC * Reference categories: Bergamo centre; Females; Low risk factors; HB < 13 g/dL; HCT < 39.5 %; PLT < 650 (x109/L); WBC <7.2 (x109/L); Absence of JAK2V617F Carobbio A et al., Blood 2007; JCO 2008 Barbui T et al,Blood 20010 Carobbio et al, JCO 2008; Carobbio et al, Blodd 2008, Barbui et al, Blood 2009

  17. PT-1 randomized clinical trial in high risk ET (Hydroxyurea+asa)WCC & major hemorrhage p=0.01WCC & thrombosis p=0.05Plts & major hemorrhage p =0.0005Plts & thrombosis p= 0.4 (not significant)

  18. RISK FACTORS FOR THROMBOSIS in WHO-ET (n=891) (inception cohort) Risk factor HR scores Age > 60 1.50 1 CV risk factors 1.56 1 Previous thrombosis 1.93 2 JAK2 V617F 2.04 2 * Multivariate model adjusted for: sex, hemoglobin ,leukocyte and platelet counts, Hydroxyurea and aspirin use. Score: 0 low-risk Score: 1-2 intermediate risk Score => 3 high risk Barbui et al, J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 10;29(23):3179-84; Barbui et al,Blood 2012. Carobbio et al, Blood. 2011 Jun 2;117(22):5857-9. Epub 2011 Apr 13.

  19. The IPSET thrombosis model in WHO-ET LOW INTERMEDIATE HIGH p=0.0001 Barbui et al, Blood 2012

  20. Early prefibrotic PMF:Multivariate analysis (metric variables) for risk factors predicting fatal and nonfatal thrombotic events in the follow-up of 264 patients Major thrombosis AT DVT HR (95% CI) p HR (95% CI) p HR (95% CI) p Female gender 1.0 (0.48-2.19) 0.94 1.7 (0.69-4.21) 0.25 0.3 (0.07-1.42) 0.13 Age 1.0 (0.99-1.05) 0.20 1.0 (0.99-1.06) 0.11 1.0 (0.91-1.03) 0.28 Prev. thrombosis 1.8 (0.79-4.20) 0.16 1.6 (0.66-4.05) 0.29 1.9 (0.28-12.8) 0.51 Hb (higher)0.9 (0.69-1.09) 0.22 1.0 (0.78-1.32) 0.9 0.6 (0.40-0.86) 0.01 Plt count (higher) 1.0 (1.00-1.00) 0.06 1.0 (0.99-1.00) 0.041.0 (1.00-1.00) 0.15 WBC (higher) 1.2 (1.04-1.26) 0.01 1.1 (1.00-1.25) 0.047 1.2 (0.97-1.40) 0.09 JAK2 V617F 1.5 (0.52-4.12) 0.46 2.0 (0.60-6.97) 0.25 0.9 (0.16-5.06) 0.89 CV risk factors 0.6 (0.23-1.54) 0.28 0.7 (0.25-1.91) 0.47 1.1 (0.20-6.27) 0.91 Buxhofer et al., AJH ,2012

  21. Hazard ratio (HR) for disease complications in patients treated with Anagrelide (+ asa) vs Hydroxyurea (+asa) in PT1 trial Bone marrow in PT1 trial Venous thromboembolism occurred less frequently in Anagrelide group (HR 0.27)

  22. ANAHYDRET-Study vs. PT1-Trial Difference in the patient cohorts may explain the difference in study-results ANAHYDRET-Study PT1-Trial PVSG-ET e.g. prefibrotic PMF and PMF1 „true-ET“ Gisslinger et al, Blood 2013 Harrison et al, NEJM 1995

  23. Bleedingis more frequent in early PMF and suggestscaution on the use of aspirin in primaryprophylaxis of thrombosis Finazzi G, et al, Leukemia 2011

  24. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for bleeding Finazzi et al,Leukemia 2011

  25. PT-1 randomized clinical trial in high risk ET (Hydroxyurea+asa)WCC & major hemorrhage p=0.01WCC & thrombosis p=0.05Plts & major hemorrhage p =0.0005Plts & thrombosis p= 0.4 (not significant)

  26. WHO-ET vs. EARLY- PMF Way does this distinction matter • Different clinico-hematological presentation • Different overall survival • Different myelofibrosis-free survival • Different leukemia-free survival • No difference in thrombosis-free survival, • but different risk factors for total thrombosis • Different risk of bleeding • There is a difference in the risk for thrombosis and bleeding

  27. CONCLUSION :The limited reproducibility of this distinction precludes its use in clinical practice • Proposed solution: a scientific project, including the pathologists and hematologists • Aim • toselect a small set of robust diagnostic criteria • to assess the reproducibility • to evaluate the corresponding clinical outcomes

  28. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

More Related