Validation of the High-Risk Prognostic Score Defined By the Presence of Mutations in NRAS or TP53 in a Cohort of 497 Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia

INTRODUCTION Older AML patients have a different mutational landscape compared to younger patients. The prognostic classification of AML proposed by the European Leukemia Net (2017) is based on the presence of mutations in FLT3 (ITD), NPM1, CEBPA, RUNX1, ASXL1 and TP53. However, our group has identified a high-risk prognostic score in older patients with AML, who are undergoing treatment with azacitidine or low-dose cytarabine plus fludarabine, which predict a shorter survival. OBJECTIVE Validation of the previously identified high-risk prognostic score, defined by the presence of mutations in NRAS or TP53, in 3 cohorts of patients with AML who have been studied by NGS with a custom panel in the healthcare practice (Cohort 1: Intensive treatment; cohort 2: Hypomethylating agents and cohort 3: low-dose cytarabine) METHODS The study was conducted on a series of 535 patients diagnosed with AML (mean age 67). Patients evaluated for OS and RFS were 497 cases: intensive treatment (schemes 3+7 or similar; n=238), hypomethylating agents (azacitidine, decitabine; n=113) and treated with low-dose cytarabine (n=146). 38 patients on supportive therapy were excluded. Mutational profile was identified at diagnosis by NGS technique (Ion Torrent System), using a custom panel of 41 genes involved in myeloid pathologies: ASXL1, BCOR, BCORL1, CALR, CBL, CEBPA, DNMT3A, EPAS1, EPOR, ETV6, EZH2, FLT3, IDH1, IDH2, JAK2, KDM6A, KIT, KMT2A, KRAS, MPL, NF1, NPM1, NRAS, PHF6, PRPF40B, RAD21, RUNX1, SETBP1, SF3A1, SF3B1, SH2B3, SMC1A, SRSF2, STAG2, TET2, THPO, TP53, U2AF1, VHL, WT1 y ZRSR2. The mean OS and RFS were compared by means of Kaplan-Meier curves using the log-rank test. The bioinformatics analysis was performed with the SPSS software. RESULTS The median SG and RFS of this series was 10.8 months and 6.9 months respectively. The mutational profile in older patients was different from that analyzed in younger patients. We observed greater presence of mutations in NPM1 in younger patients (34.4 vs 18.6%, p=0.04), while in older than 65 years were identified more mutations in ASXL1 (3.9 vs 16.6%, p<0.01) or RUNX1 (8.6 vs 18.4%, p=0.005). No differences were observed in TP53, NRAS, TET2, DNMT3A and FLT3-ITD. However, we detected differences in VAF distribution of variants with lower VAF in younger patients in NPM1 (0.9 vs 5%, p=0.001), RUNX1 (4.1 vs 9.1%, p=0.003), ASXL1 (1.5 vs 8.2%, p<0.001) and TP53 (5.9 vs 14%, p<0.001) The median OS for intensively treated patients with a low-risk prognostic score was 49.1 months (17.56, 80.60) vs. 18.9 (14.98, 22.79) for high-risk patients (p=0.015). The median RFS was 45.2 months (5.2; 85.14) for low-risk patients vs. 42.1 (18.35; 65.92) for high-risk patients (p=0.167). The median OS for low-risk patients treated with hypomethylating agents was 13.2 months (9.02, 17.47) vs. 4.8 (1.6, 7.9) for patients with a high-risk score (p=0.002). The median RFS was 9.9 months (7.4, 12.3) for low-risk patients vs. 14.9 (10.1, 19.8) for high-risk patients (p=0.682). The median OS for patients treated with low-dose cytarabine was 8.4 months (4.9, 12.1) for low risk vs. 3.1 (1.22, 4.94) for high risk (p<0.001). The median RFS was 6.8 months (5.28, 8.42) for low-risk patients vs. 3.7 (2.75, 4.66) for those with a high-risk score (p=0.008). CONCLUSIONS We have confirm that exist differences in the mutational profile between older and younger AML patients and these differences have implications in the definition of risk of these patients. The prognostic score defined by the presence of mutations in the TP53 and NRAS genes, has been validated as an adverse prognostic factor across the three treatment groups studied (intensive treatment, hypomethylating agents and low-dose cytarabine) for OS, and this score no predict risk of relapse in the cohorts with intensive and hypomethylating treatments at difference to the low-dose cytarabine cohort. ML.M. enjoys a research grant from the Spanish Society of Hematology and Hemotherapy. This work has been financed thanks to the aid PI16/01225 and PI19/01518, from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad) and co-financed by the European Development Fund. Disclosures Montesinos: Astellas, Novartis, Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Pfizer, Abbvie: Consultancy; Pfizer, Abbvie, Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. Martinez-Lopez:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sanz:Teva, Daiichi-Sankyo, Orsenix, AbbVie, Novartis, and Pfizer: Other: Consulting or Advisory Role.

Download Full-text

The Effect Of Low Dose Intravenous Heparin On Anti-Factor Xa And Antithrombin III

10.1055/s-0038-1653109 ◽

1981 ◽

Author(s):

S A Jennings ◽

B P Heather ◽

R M Greenhalgh

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Low Dose ◽

Antithrombin Iii ◽

Risk Group ◽

Factor Xa ◽

Low Risk ◽

Heparin Infusion ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Intravenous Heparin ◽

Risk Patients

Preoperative blood samples from 17 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery were examined by the thrombelasto-graph saline dilution test, which has previously been shown to be a predictor of the risk of early postoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT)(Heather et al 1980). By this test 8 patients were predicted to be at low risk of developing a DVT and received no special prophylaxis. 9 patients were considered to be at risk and were treated with a subcutaneous dose of 1000 units of heparin with the premedication together with a low dose of intravenous heparin infusion from the induction of anaesthesia until 2 hours after operation. Plasma antithrombin III (ATIII) concentration and anti-factor Xa activity were measured preoperatively, on day 1 and on day 3. No early DVT occurred, as assessed by I125 fibrinogen scanning, in either the untreated low risk patients or in the high risk patients receiving heparin infusion. The high risk patients had lower levels of ATIII before operation than the low risk patients (75±9%; 98±39%) and significantly lower levels on day 3 (64±25%; 106±34% p<0.02). However, these lowered levels of ATIII appeared in the high risk group to be augmented by the significant increase in anti-factor Xa activity 127±64%. before operation, 217±89%, on day 1 (p<0.02). Furthermore, on day 3 the high risk patients had significantly greater activity than those patients in the low risk group (212±76%; 106±34% p<0.02).These results show that those patients at risk of developing a postoperative DVT had a significantly enhanced activation of anti-factor Xa, as a result of intravenous low dose heparin with the subsequent abolition of early venous thrombosis.

Download Full-text

External validation of the Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS) for renal cancer.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2012.30.5_suppl.378 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽

pp. 378-378

Author(s):

Viraj A. Master ◽

Timothy V. Johnson ◽

Omer Kucuk ◽

Daniel Canter ◽

John Pattaras ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Cox Regression ◽

Inflammatory Responses ◽

Prognostic Score ◽

External Validation ◽

Glasgow Prognostic Score ◽

Low Risk ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Risk Patients

378 Background: Inflammation has been termed the 7th hallmark of cancer (Hanahan and Weinberg Cell 2011). Measurement of systemic inflammatory responses in malignancy is possible using a selective combination of two commonly available, cost-effective serum assays. The combination of these two serum markers, C-reactive protein (CRP) and albumin, is termed the modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), and is strongly correlated with outcome in a variety of cancers, including mRCC. Recently, mGPS has been shown to be predictive of outcome in localized RCC (ASCO GU 2010 #390). We sought to externally validate these results. Methods: Nephrectomized patients with clinically localized (T1-T4N0M0) clear cell RCC with negative surgical margins were followed for a mean of 25 months (range: 1-81 months). Relapse and survival was identified through routine follow-up. Patients were categorized by mGPS score as Low Risk (mGPS = 0 points), Intermediate Risk (mGPS = 1 point), and High Risk (mGPS = 2 points). One point was assigned to patients for an elevated CRP (>10 mg/L) and hypoalbuminemia (<3.5 mg/dL). Patients with normal CRP and hypoalbuminemia were assigned 0 points. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression analyses examined relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) across patient and disease characteristics. Results: Of 248 patients, 17.9% relapsed and 18.6% died. Of Low, Intermediate, and High Risk patients, 7.2%, 7.7%, and 45.5%, respectively relapsed and 5.2%, 15.4%, and 39.4%, respectively died during the study. In multivariate analysis including stage and grade, mGPS was significantly associated with RFS and OS. Compared to Low-Risk patients, High-Risk patients experienced a 3-fold (OR: 2.906, 95% CI: 1.055-8.001) increased risk of relapse and 4-fold (HR: 3.722, 95% CI: 1.046-13.245) increased risk of mortality. AUC is 0.813, which compares very favorably to existing prognostic algorithms. Conclusions: In this external validation cohort of US patients, mGPS continues to be a predictor of relapse and overall mortality following nephrectomy for localized RCC. Clinicians may consider using mGPS as an adjunct to identify high-risk patients for possible enrollment into clinical trials, or for patient counseling.

Download Full-text

Real-World Treatments and Thrombotic Events in Polycythemia Vera Patients: A Retrospective Analysis between 2018-2019 in US Population

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-142549 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1-2

Author(s):

Srdan Verstovsek ◽

Ariel Han ◽

Karin Chun Hayes ◽

Tracy Woody ◽

Frank Valone ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Real World ◽

Blood Cells ◽

Initial Treatment ◽

Research Funding ◽

Treatment Initiation ◽

Low Risk ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients

BACKGROUND Polycythemia Vera (PV) is a rare myeloproliferative neoplasm associated with an increased production of red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. Most frequent treatment includes phlebotomy, hydroxyurea, interferon, and ruxolitinib. Current NCCN guideline recommends managing HCT levels to below 45%. The objective of this study was to determine real-world standards of care and patient characteristics, and to observe how treatment decisions vary by HCT level and thrombosis risk. METHODOLOGY We conducted a retrospective study using Symphony Health's longitudinal transactional healthcare claims database that includes prescription, medical and hospital claims across > 4,900 US payers representing 86% of US lives. Eligible patients had at least one ICD-10 diagnosis code for PV and at least one of the treatments including phlebotomy, hydroxyurea, busulfan, interferon, and ruxolitinib between Jan 1, 2018 and Dec 31, 2019 (index period). For eligible patients, all prior treatment history initiated as far back as January 2010 was used to report therapy changes. Patients were also required to have at least one PV diagnosis within a year of treatment initiation and at least 2 HCT lab results during the index period. PV treatment changes and characteristics were studied. RESULTS Out of 28,306 patients with PV, 4,264 patients had HCT lab data for 2 years (index period). Median duration of follow-up was 854 days (range 98-3,373days). Patient therapy duration was from 1 to 9 years. Median patient age was 65 (range 11-94), with 1,451 (34%) patients aged less than 60, 2,813 (66%) 60 years or older, and a substantial male predominance (62% vs 38%). 1,247 (29%) patients were classified as Low Risk (age< 60 with no TE history) and 3,017 (71%) patients as High Risk. Within the High-Risk group, 2,224 (52%) were age>60 without prior TE, 204 (5%) were age<60 with prior TE and 589 (14%) were age>60 with prior TE. For Low Risk patients' initial treatment was phlebotomy alone (85%) and a total of 73% of all Low Risk patients remained on phlebotomy alone. For High Risk patients' initial treatment was phlebotomy alone (60%) and 43% all of High-Risk patients remained on phlebotomy alone (Figure 1). The median HCT prior to treatment initiation was 52.9% and 48% during treatment. 936 (22%) patients achieved NCCN treatment guidelines with HCT levels always remaining under 45%, and 1,226 (29%) patients had HCT levels controlled between 45% and 50%. However, 2,102 (49%) patients had some or all HCT levels> 50% (Figure 2). With the most recent lab test, 2,180 (51%) of patients still had HCTs above 45% and 804 (19%) were still above 50%. In a sub-cohort of 653 High Risk patients with a prior TE and up to 5 years of follow up, 236 (36%) had at least one other TE; for the 1,774 High Risk patients who did not have the history of thrombosis, 161(9%) had at least one TE (Table 2). The most common TE since treatment began in patients with prior TE were deep vein thrombosis (n= 92 patients, 14%) and stroke (n= 95 patients, 15%). Among High Risk patients (n=397) who had another thrombotic event, 180 (45%) were treated by phlebotomy only and never switched to any other therapies. CONCLUSIONS Despite currently available treatments in US, patients' HCT level after treatment were higher than recommended as per guidelines. Failure to maintain HCT less than 45% increases the risk of future thrombotic events as shown by 36% of patients with prior TE experiencing another TE within the next 5 years. Disclosures Verstovsek: Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; ItalPharma: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma Corp: Research Funding. Han:Protagonist Therapeutics: Consultancy. Chun Hayes:Protagonist: Consultancy. Woody:Protagonist: Current Employment. Valone:Protagonist: Current Employment. Gupta:Protagonist: Current Employment.

Download Full-text

VTE Incidence in RRMM Patients Treated with NOVEL Agents: A Monocentric Real Life Experience

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-131015 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4972-4972

Author(s):

Gaetano Giuffrida ◽

Concetta Conticello ◽

Valeria Calafiore ◽

Enrica Antonia Martino ◽

Silvia Giamporcaro ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

High Risk ◽

Research Funding ◽

Real Life ◽

Low Risk ◽

Novel Agents ◽

Vte Prophylaxis ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients ◽

Low Incidence

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is very common in patients with malignancies. Compared to the general population, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have a 9-fold increased risk of developing VTE. In patients treated with thalidomide or lenalidomide, current guidelines recommend systematic VTE prophylaxis with ASA in low risk patients while vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or low weight molecular heparin (LWMH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) in high-risk patients, based on the type of anti-MM treatment that patients receive and patient-related individual risk factors (e. g. history of VTE). However, little is known on VTE prophylaxis in patients treated with next generation anti-myeloma drugs, such as pomalidomide, carfilzomib and monoclonal antibodies daratumumab and elotuzumab. Here, we describe the incidence of VTE in MM patients treated with third generation novel agents in real life. In addition, we stratify patients on drugs category-based regimens to evaluate strategy of VTE prophylaxis between different groups of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 137 patients affected by relapsed and/ or refractory multiple myeloma treated with novel agents was analyzed. Patients were followed at the Division of Hematology of Catania from April 2013 to June2019. Our series includes 75 patients exposed to Pomalidomide and Dexametasone (PomaD), 46 patients receiving Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide and desamethasone regimen (KRd), 14 patients exposed to Daratumumab(Dara), 27 patients to Daratumumab, Bortezomib and desamethasone (DaraVD), 4 patients to Daratumumab lenalidomide and desamethasone (DaraRd), and12 patients exposed to Elotuzumab and Lenalidomide (EloRd). Several patients were exposed to multiple lines of treatment with novel agents: the total number of analyzed treatments are 178. Patients were stratified to high or low risk for VTE: risk factors taken into account were obesity, history of VTE, central venous catheter, inhered thrombophilia, surgical procedures and comorbidities such as infections, immobilization, cardiac disease, chronic renal disease. Low risk patients had no or one risk factor; in case of two or more risk factors, the patients were classified as high risk. Low-dose aspirin (ASA 100 mg per os once daily) or equivalent was prescribed in low risk patients, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or equivalent was given to high risk patients. Only Dara treatment did not include standard prophylaxis in patients without risk factors. RESULTS: Real life observation revealed a low incidence of VTE (6 VTE-4,3%) in patients exposed to novel agents together with a standard prophylaxis in case of risk of thromboembolic complications. Forty patients were at high risk of VTE, while 97 patients were classified as low risk; VTE/PE occurred in 2 high risk patients who refused to make correct LMWH prophylaxis due to the discomfort of the subcutaneous administration, developing distal DVT respectively after cycle 1 and 2 of KRd. Two low risk patients treated with PomaD developed DVT of lower extremities during cycle 2 and 4; 2 low risk patients had pulmonary embolism during PomaD cycle 8. CONCLUSIONS: Low incidence of VTE in patients with RRMM receiving PomaD, KRd, EloRd, DaraVD, DaraRd, Dara or EloRd treatment is probably due to a correct risk assessment and subsequent prophylaxis in case of therapies including immunomodulators or in case of patients with high risk for thromboembolic complications. These data support the use of VTE risk stratification-based prophylactic strategies in myeloma patients treated with new drugs. Disclosures Conticello: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Di Raimondo:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Low Von Willebrand Factor: Cut-Off Value for Diagnosis and Risk Score to Predict Bleeding Incidence

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-142375 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 18-19

Author(s):

Ferdows Atiq ◽

Esmee Wuijster ◽

Moniek P.M. de Maat ◽

Marieke J.H.A. Kruip ◽

Marjon H. Cnossen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Risk Score ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Risk ◽

Intermediate Risk ◽

Spontaneous Bleeding ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients ◽

Surgical Bleeding

Introduction Although large studies have recently provided valuable insights on the diagnosis, bleeding phenotype, and treatment outcomes of VWD patients, these aspects remain poorly understood in individuals with low VWF. Firstly, there is no clear evidence which cut-off value should be used to diagnose low VWF. Although 0.50 IU/mL is the most recommended cut-off value, some centers use the lower limit of normal (0.60 IU/mL). Secondly, the incidence of post-surgical bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) and traumatic- or spontaneous bleeding after diagnosis of low VWF are still unknown. Lastly, it is hard to predict which individuals with low VWF have an increased bleeding risk. Therefore, we investigated the bleeding phenotype of individuals with historically lowest VWF levels of 0.31-0.50 IU/mL and 0.51-0.60 IU/mL, and the incidence of post-surgical bleeding, PPH and traumatic- and spontaneous bleeding after their initial diagnosis of "low VWF". Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study from January 2007 to November 2019 at the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam. All patients evaluated for the presence of a bleeding disorder with VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) and/or VWF activity (VWF:Act) and/or VWF collagen binding (VWF:CB) levels between 0.31-0.60 IU/mL, were included. Patients with VWF:Ag and/or VWF:Act and/or VWF:CB ≤0.30 IU/mL, acquired VWD and those with a concomitant bleeding disorder were excluded. For each individual we collected data from electronic patient files on baseline characteristics, reason for referral, family history of bleeding disorders, ISTH-BAT and laboratory measurements at diagnosis. Retrospective follow-up started from initial date of low VWF diagnosis through November 2019, during which we collected data on surgical procedures, pregnancies, and incidence of spontaneous- and traumatic bleeding. Results We included 439 patients; 269 patients with historically lowest VWF levels 0.31-0.50 IU/mL and 170 patients 0.51-0.60 IU/mL. Mean age at diagnosis was 28.8 ±17.7 years. Most patients were female (74.3%) and had blood group O (76.4%, Table 1). The bleeding score (BS) was similar in patients with historically lowest VWF levels of 0.31-0.50 IU/mL (3.7 ±3.0) and 0.51-0.60 IU/mL (4.0 ±2.9, p=0.209, Table 1). During the mean follow-up period of 6.3 ±3.7 years, 259 surgical procedures were performed in 146 patients, 81 deliveries in 56 women, and 109 spontaneous- or traumatic bleedings in 71 patients. The incidence of post-surgical bleeding was 7 (2.7%) during follow-up, whereas 8 deliveries (10%) were complicated by PPH. Overall, 65 out of 439 patients (14.8%) had a bleeding episode requiring treatment during follow-up, resulting in an incidence of bleeding requiring treatment of 0.5 ±1.9 per patient per decade. No difference was found in the incidence of bleeding requiring treatment between patients with historically lowest VWF levels of 0.31-0.50 IU/mL and 0.51-0.60 IU/mL (Figure 2A, p=0.154). We found that referral for a personal bleeding diathesis, a younger age at diagnosis and an abnormal BS at diagnosis were strong and independent risk factors for bleeding requiring treatment during follow-up, respectively HR=2.32 (95%CI: 1.16-4.63), HR=1.18 (95%CI: 1.01-1.38) and HR=1.77 (95%CI: 1.04-3.01). These risk factors were combined to develop a risk score to identify low VWF patients with an increased risk for bleeding requiring treatment (Figure 2B). The risk score performed excellent to differentiate in bleeding requiring treatment between low risk, intermediate risk and high risk patients (p<0.001, Figure 2C). The number of patients with bleeding requiring treatment was 8/126 (6.3%) in patients with low risk, 18/143 (12.6%) in intermediate risk and 39/170 (22.9%) in high risk patients (p<0.001). Likewise, the incidence of bleeding requiring treatment per patient per decade was 0.22 ±1.08 in low risk, 0.28 ±1.25 in intermediate risk and 0.87 ±2.61 in high risk patients (p=0.004, Figure 2D). Conclusion To conclude, there is no difference in the bleeding phenotype of individuals with historically lowest VWF levels of 0.31-0.50 IU/mL and 0.51-0.60 IU/mL. Therefore, the cut-off value to diagnose low VWF should be set at 0.60 IU/mL. Furthermore, the risk score developed in the current study may assist to identify low VWF patients with low, intermediate and high risk for future bleeding. Disclosures Atiq: SOBI: Other: travel grant; CSL Behring: Research Funding. Kruip:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; SOBI: Research Funding; Bayer: Speakers Bureau. Cnossen:Takeda: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Baxter: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Sobi: Research Funding; CSL behring: Research Funding; Nordic Pharma: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Leebeek:CSL Behring: Research Funding; Shire/Takeda: Research Funding; Uniqure: Consultancy; Shire/Takeda: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; SOBI: Other: Travel grant; Roche: Other: DSMB member for a study.

Download Full-text

Genetic Risk Stratification to Minimize Inhibitor Risk with the Use of Recombinant Factor VIII Concentrates: A Sippet Analysis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.325.325 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 325-325

Author(s):

Frits Rosendaal ◽

Roberta Palla ◽

Isabella Garagiola ◽

Piermannuccio Mannucci ◽

Flora Peyvandi

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Risk Stratification ◽

Factor Viii ◽

Cumulative Incidence ◽

Research Funding ◽

Risk Difference ◽

Low Risk ◽

Inhibitor Development ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients

Abstract Background The development of neutralizing antibodies against factor VIII is a common and serious complication of replacement therapy, occurring mainly in the early stages of treatment. Meta-analyses of observational studies have suggested a higher risk of inhibitor development with concentrates produced by recombinant technologies (rFVIII) than with those derived from human plasma (pdFVIII) containing von Willebrand factor, which was recently confirmed in a randomized trial. In this trial cumulative incidences of inhibitor development were 44.5% for rFVIII and 26.8% for pdFVIII, for a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.87 (95% confidence interval (CI95) 1.17-2.96). Given the particularly high risk with rFVIII , it has been suggested to restrict the use of rFVIII to low risk patients, and treat high-risk patients with pdFVIII. We investigated such a strategy in a post-hoc analysis of the SIPPET study, in which we used the FVIII genotype (F8 gene mutation) to classify patients by prior risk. Methods SIPPET is an open label international randomized trial on which 251 previously untreated (n=142) or minimally treated (less than five exposure to blood components other than concentrate or cryoprecipitate, n=109) in 42 centers to be treated exclusively with a concentrate from the class of rFVIII or pdFVIII. Patients were tested for inhibitors before entry and at regular intervals during 50 exposure days, 3 years or the development of an inhibitor of at least 0.4 Bethesda units (BU). The trial ran from 2010 to 2014 and was terminated when the prespecified number of patients was included. Patients who had not reached 50ED by that time were censored. Patients were classified at high risk when they carried a null mutation (inversion, large deletion, frameshift, nonsense mutation) in the F8 gene and as low risk when they carried another causative variant (missense, splice site, polymorphisms, no mutation). We estimated cumulative incidences, hazard ratios and numbers needed to harm (NNH) for rFVIII vs pdFVIII for high- and low risk patients. Results Among 251 patients, 76 developed an inhibitor (all > 0.7 BU) of which 50 were high- titer (> 5 BU). Among 197 patients classified as high risk, 65 developed an inhibitor (cumulative incidence 38.2%, CI95 30.8-45.6), whereas among the 38 patients classified as low risk 7 developed an inhibitor (cumulative incidence 23.9%, CI95 8.2-39.6). High and low risk patients were equally distributed over the two arms of the trial, i.e., 96 out of 126 treated with rFVIII were high risk, and 101 out of 125 treated with pdFVIII. Among high risk patients, cumulative incidence was 30.7% when treated with pdFVIII , and 46.5% when treated with rFVIII (risk difference 15.8%). Among low risk patients, no inhibitors developed with pdFVIII, whereas the cumulative incidence was 43.2% with rFVIII (risk difference 43.2%). This implies that the Number Needed to Harm was 5.6 overall, 6.3 for high-risk patients, and 2.3 in low risk patients. Conclusion Risk stratification by the type of F8 mutation does not identify previously untreated patients with hemophilia A who have a low inhibitor risk when exposed to rFVIII. Other means need to be found to reduce the occurrence of inhibitors with rFVIII. Disclosures Palla: Pfizer: Other: travel support . Mannucci:NovoNordisk: Speakers Bureau; Kedrion: Speakers Bureau; Grifols: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Speakers Bureau. Peyvandi:Bayer: Speakers Bureau; SOBI: Speakers Bureau; Kedrion Biopharma: Consultancy, Other: research funding paid to Luigi Villa Foundation, Research Funding; Alexion: Other: research funding paid to Luigi Villa Foundation, Research Funding; Octapharma: Consultancy; Ablynx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: research funding paid to Luigi Villa Foundation, Research Funding; Biotest: Other: research funding paid to Luigi Villa Foundation, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Speakers Bureau; LFB: Consultancy; Grifols: Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Other: research funding paid to Luigi Villa Foundation, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Practice-Relevant Revision of Ipset-Thrombosis Based on 1019 Patients with WHO-Defined Essential Thrombocythemia

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.4055.4055 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 4055-4055

Author(s):

Tiziano Barbui ◽

Alessandro M. Vannucchi ◽

Veronika Buxhofer-Ausch ◽

Valerio De Stefano ◽

Silvia Betti ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

High Risk ◽

Research Funding ◽

Risk Group ◽

Low Risk ◽

P Value ◽

Jak2 Mutation ◽

Risk Status ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients

Abstract Background In the recent International Prognostic Score for Thrombosis in essential thrombocythemia (IPSET-thrombosis), age and history of thrombosis were confirmed as independent risk factors for future thrombosis and the study also identified independent prothrombotic role for cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and JAK2 V617F mutation (Barbui et al. Blood 2012). Methods In the current study, we re-analyzed the original IPSET-thrombosis data in 1019 patients with WHO-defined ET in whom JAK2 mutational status was available, in order to quantify the individual contributions of JAK2 mutations and CV risk factors in conventionally-assigned low and high risk ET, as well as in age- versus thrombosis-defined high risk status. Results After a median follow-up of 6.8 and 5.0 years in conventionally-assigned low- and high-risk patients, respectively, the overall annual rate of total thrombosis (108 events) in conventionally-assigned low- and high-risk patients was 1.11%-pt/y (CI 0.81-1.52) and 2.46%-pt/y (CI 1.94-3.11) respectively (p=0.001), and the difference was mainly due to a higher frequency of arterial thrombosis in high-risk patients (p<0.001).The influence of JAK2 mutational status and CV-risk factors on the rate of thrombosis in conventionally assigned low- and high-risk groups is presented in the table. Table 1. Additional risk factors N (%) Event Rate % pts/yr (95% CI) P-value P-value P-value trend Low risk 506 (50) 39 1.11 (0.81-1.52) None 200 (40) 7 0.44 (0.21-0.92) ref Cardiovascular risk factor 36 (7) 3 1.05 (0.34-3.25) 0.220 0.227 JAK2V617F 213 (43) 21 1.59 (1.04-2.44) 0.001 0.217 Both 52 (10) 8 2.57 (1.29-5.15) <0.001 ref <0.001 High risk 513 (50) 69 2.46 (1.94-3.11) None 111 (22) 10 1.44 (0.78-2.68) ref Cardiovascular risk factor 44 (9) 4 1.64 (0.62-4.37) 0.909 0.067 JAK2V617F 222 (43) 30 2.36 (1.65-3.38) 0.168 0.082 Both 136 (27) 25 4.17 (2.82-6.17) 0.011 ref 0.005 The number of major arterial and venous thrombosis was reported as rates per 100 patient-years and the difference among groups was assessed by Mantel Cox log-rank test i) Conventionally-assigned low-risk group. Amongst 506 patients, 200 (40%) displayed neither JAK2 mutation nor CV risk factors and their annual rate of thrombosis was 0.44%, as opposed to 1.05% in the presence of CV risk factors (P=NS), 1.59% in the presence of JAK2 mutation (p=0.001) and 2.57% in the presence of both CV risk factors and JAK2 mutation (P<0.001). There was no significant difference when low-risk patients with both JAK2 mutation and CV risk factors were compared with either those with CV risk factors only (p=0.227) or those with JAK2 mutation only (p=0.217). ii) Conventionally assigned high-risk group: The absence or presence of one or both of the aforementioned additional risk factors for thrombosis were documented in 111 (22%), 44 (9%), 222 (43%) and 136 (27%) patients, respectively, with corresponding annual rates of thrombosis at 1.44%, 1.64%, 2.36% and 4.17% (Table). High-risk patients with both risk factors had a significantly higher risk of thrombosis compared to their counterparts with the absence of JAK2 mutations and CV risk factors (p=0.011). Additional analysis revealed limited enhancement of thrombosis risk by either JAK2 mutations or CV risk factors or both in patients whose high-risk status was defined by the presence of thrombosis history, regardless of age (P=NS). In contrast, the presence of JAK2 mutations, with or without CV risk factors, might have affected thrombosis risk in patients where high-risk status was defined by age alone (p=0.05). Conclusions The current study suggests the possibility of considering four risk categories in ET: "very low risk" group (age ≤60 years and without thrombosis history, JAK2 mutations or CV risk factors); "low risk" (age ≤60 years and without thrombosis history but with JAK2 mutations or CV risk factors); "intermediate risk" (age>60 years but without thrombosis history or JAK2 mutations); and "high risk" (thrombosis history at any age or JAK2 -mutated patients who are older than 60 years of age). Treatment recommendations for each one of the above-mentioned new risk categories should be examined in the context of prospective controlled studies. Disclosures Barbui: Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Buxhofer-Ausch:AOP Orphan: Research Funding. De Stefano:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Research Funding; Shire: Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Speakers Bureau; Bruno Farmaceutici: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Gisslinger:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AOP ORPHAN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Long Term Outcome of Patients with Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia Treated with All-Trans Retinoic Acid, Arsenic Trioxide with or without Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.3776.3776 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 3776-3776

Author(s):

Farhad Ravandi ◽

Jorge E. Cortes ◽

Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽

Elihu Estey ◽

Gautam Borthakur ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Research Funding ◽

Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin ◽

Low Risk ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Term Outcome ◽

Long Term Outcome ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients

Abstract Background - Combination of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO) for the initial treatment of patients with low and intermediate risk acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) has been shown to be superior to ATRA plus chemotherapy but there is limited available long-term follow up on the "chemotherapy-free" combinations. Methods - We examined the long-term outcome of patients with newly diagnosed APL treated at our institution on three consecutive prospective clinical trials of the combination of ATRA and ATO with or without gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) (ID01-014; NCT01409161; NCT00413166). Initially patients received ATRA 45 mg/m2 in two divided doses daily and beginning 10 days later, ATO 0.15 mg/kg daily. With subsequent studies, the schedule was modified for all patients to receive concomitant therapy with ATRA and ATO from day 1. Patients with WBC > 10 x 109/L and patients whose WBC rose to greater than 10 x 109/L during therapy also received a dose of GO 9 mg/m2. Standard supportive care as well as steroids for prophylaxis for differentiation syndrome were administered to all patients. A bone marrow exam to assess response was performed between days 21 and 28 and, if necessary, repeated weekly. Once in CR, patients received consolidation with ATO 0.15 mg/kg daily 5 days/week for 4 weeks every 8 weeks for a total of 4 cycles and ATRA 45 mg/m2 daily for 2 weeks every 4 weeks for a total of 8 months. Bone marrow assessment was performed every 3 months for 1 year and if PCR for PML-RARA was confirmed positive, a dose of GO would be administered. Results - From July 2002 to May 2015, 183 patients have been enrolled into the three trials. During the same period a total of 235 patients with newly diagnosed APL were seen at our institution. Reasons for not being enrolled in the studies were: insurance/socio-economic in 39 (75%) and died within 48 hours of presentation in 13 (25%). Median age of the study patients was 50 years (range, 14-84). 52 (28%) were older than 60 years. Median WBC at presentation was 2.2 x 109/L (range, 0.3-187.9). 52 (28%) had high risk disease with WBC > 10 x 109/L and 131 (72%) had low risk disease with a WBC ≤ 10 x 109/L. Cytogenetics were t(15;17) alone in 117 (64%), t(15;17) plus other in 48 (26%), other, not done, or insufficient in 18 (10%). PCR was positive for PML-RARA in all patients (100%) with the long isoform in 104 (57%), short in 78 (43%), and both in 1 (<1%). Overall 176 (96%) achieved CR with CR rate of 96% for low risk patients and 96% for high risk patients. Early death (occurring within 1 month of study entry) occurred in 7 (4%) and was due to 1 infection/multi-organ failure (MOF), 3 hemorrhage, 3 MOF/hemorrhage/infection. Differentiation syndrome was diagnosed in 21 (11.5%) Other toxicities included QT prolongation in 14 (7.7%), infections in 44 (24.0%), and hemorrhagic events in 10 (5.5%). The median duration of follow-up is 39.6 months (range, 0.8 - 138.8). Six patients (3%) have relapsed including 2 (1%) with extramedullary (both CNS) relapse. The median event-free (EFS), disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) have not yet been reached. The 5-year EFS is 85%, DFS is 96%, and OS is 87% (Figures 1). The 5-year DFS and OS for low risk patients is 99% and 88%, respectively and for the high risk patients 87% and 85%, respectively (figure 2). Conclusion - The combination of ATRA and ATO, with and without GO is effective and associated with excellent long-term DFS and OS in both low and high risk patients with newly diagnosed APL. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Cortes: Teva: Research Funding; BerGenBio AS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ambit: Consultancy, Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Jenssen: Consultancy. Jabbour:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Faderl:Celator: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Speakers Bureau; Ambit: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; JW Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding. Wierda:Glaxo-Smith-Kline Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene Corp.: Consultancy. DiNardo:Novartis: Research Funding. Konopleva:Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Stemline: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Threshold: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Current Therapy of the Patients with MDS: Walking towards Personalized Therapy

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm10102107 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (10) ◽

pp. 2107

Author(s):

Maria Luisa Palacios-Berraquero ◽

Ana Alfonso-Piérola

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

High Risk ◽

Low Risk ◽

Current Therapy ◽

Hypomethylating Agents ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Multiple Treatment ◽

Dismal Prognosis ◽

Risk Patients

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are characterized by ineffective hematopoiesis, dysplasia and peripheral cytopenias. Nowadays, MDS therapy is selected based on risk. The goals of therapy are different in low-risk and high-risk patients. In low-risk MDS, the goal is to decrease transfusion needs and to increase the quality of life. Currently, available drugs for newly diagnosed low-risk MDS include growth factor support, lenalidomide and immunosuppressive therapy. Additionally, luspatercept has recently been added to treat patients with MDS with ring sideroblasts, who are not candidates or have lost the response to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. Treatment of high-risk patients is aimed to improve survival. To date, the only currently approved treatments are hypomethylating agents and allogeneic stem cell transplantation. However, the future for MDS patients is promising. In recent years, we are witnessing the emergence of multiple treatment combinations based on hypomethylating agents (pevonedistat, magrolimab, eprenetapopt, venetoclax) that have proven to be effective in MDS, even those with high-risk factors. Furthermore, the approval in the US of an oral hypomethylating agent opens the door to exclusively oral combinations for these patients and their consequent impact on the quality of life of these patients. Relapsed and refractory patients remain an unmet clinical need. We need more drugs and clinical trials for this profile of patients who have a dismal prognosis.

Download Full-text

EMA/CO for High-Risk Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia: Good Outcomes With Induction Low-Dose Etoposide-Cisplatin and Genetic Analysis

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2012.43.1817 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 31 (2) ◽

pp. 280-286 ◽

Cited By ~ 94

Author(s):

Constantine Alifrangis ◽

Roshan Agarwal ◽

Delia Short ◽

Rosemary A. Fisher ◽

Neil J. Sebire ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Genetic Analysis ◽

Low Dose ◽

Significant Proportion ◽

Genetic Diagnosis ◽

Low Risk ◽

Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Gynecology And Obstetrics ◽

Risk Patients

Purpose Patients with high-risk (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics score ≥ 7) gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) frequently receive etoposide, methotrexate, and dactinomycin alternating weekly with cyclophosphamide and vincristine (EMA/CO). Between 1979 and 1995, overall survival (OS) with this regimen at our institute was 85.4% with a significant proportion of early deaths (< 4 weeks). Here, we determine whether survival rates have improved in a more recent patient cohort (1995 to 2010). Patients and Methods Patients receiving EMA/CO were identified using the Charing Cross GTN database. Genetic analysis identified nongestational trophoblastic tumors (nGTTs). The use of induction low-dose etoposide 100 mg/m2 and cisplatin 20 mg/m2 (EP; days 1 and 2 every 7 days) since 1995 to reduce early deaths before commencing EMA/CO was noted. Results Four hundred thirty-eight patients received EMA/CO between 1995 and 2010. Six patients had nGTTs, 140 had high-risk disease, and 250 had relapsed/resistant low-risk GTN. OS was 94.3% in high-risk patients (90.4% including nGTTs) and 99.6% in the low-risk group, with a median follow-up time of 4.2 years. All patients with nGTT and seven patients with high-risk GTNs died as a result of drug-resistant disease. EP induction chemotherapy was given to 23.1% of high-risk patients (33 of 140 patients) with a large disease burden, and the early death rate was only 0.7% (n = 1; 95% CI, 0.1% to 3.7%) compared with 7.2% (n = 11 of 151 patients; 95% CI, 4.1% to 12.6%) in the pre-1995 cohort. Conclusion OS after EMA/CO for high-risk GTN has increased by nearly 9%. This reflects a more accurate estimate of OS by excluding nGTTs (3.9%) in patients with atypical presentations using genetic diagnosis. Low-dose induction EP in selected individuals also allows near complete elimination of early deaths. The latter should be considered routinely in high-risk GTN.

Download Full-text