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

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 2107
Author(s):  
Maria Luisa Palacios-Berraquero ◽  
Ana Alfonso-Piérola

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.

2015 ◽  
Vol 93 (6) ◽  
pp. 368-374
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Mucciardi ◽  
Luciano Macchione ◽  
Alessandro Galì ◽  
Antonina di Benedetto ◽  
Enrica Subba ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 203-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea Hertel ◽  
Amir Harandi ◽  
Cliff P. Connery ◽  
Dimitrios Papadopoulos ◽  

203 Background: Malnutrition is very common in patients receiving radiation therapy. This can result in significant weight loss, decreased functioning, depression, increased mortality, and dramatic declines in quality of life during and after treatment. Targeting patients at risk with nutritional counseling and progressive intervention can have important clinical implications. Methods: A total of 106 patients at a hospital-based cancer center getting radiation for a wide spectrum of cancers (breast, lung, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and other types) were evaluated for individualized nutritional counseling and education. Patients with identified risk factors were deemed to be at high risk by nursing staff if meeting pre-specified criteria for weight loss ( > 2.5%), body mass index < 18.5%, and/or gastrointestinal symptoms (poor appetite, diarrhea, or constipation affecting quality of life). After high risk patients were identified by a nursing staff triage questionnaire, an automatic computer generated referral was made to the nutritionist. Results: Prior to the institution of this protocol, 13.7% of patients getting radiation therapy were noted to be at high risk and not receiving any nutritional intervention during their course of radiotherapy. However, after the initiation of adequate screening by nursing staff triggering a nutrition referral, the percentage of high risk patients without an associated nutrition consult declined to 1.1%. Conclusions: This study conveys important information for having a systemic screening process in place to identify those at risk for progressive malnutrition while getting radiotherapy for a broad spectrum of tumor types.


2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4012-LBA4012 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Marten ◽  
J. Schmidt ◽  
J. Debus ◽  
S. Harig ◽  
K. Lindel ◽  
...  

LBA4012 Background:Adjuvant chemomonotherapy in PAC results in five-year survival of 21% with median overall survival (mOS) of 23 months. Phase II trials evaluating adjuvant CRI showed promising results (mOS 27-44 months). Methods: Patients with an R0/R1 resection for PAC were randomized <12 weeks of surgery to receive either 5-Fluorouracil (200mg/m2/day, CI); Cisplatin (weekly 30mg/m2) and 3 million units IFN-α (three times a week) for 5.5 weeks combined with external beam radiation (50.4Gy in 28 fractions) followed by two more cycles of continuous 5-FU or 5FU/FA (FA, 20 mg/m2, iv bolus injection followed by 5-FU, 425 mg/m2, iv bolus injection given 1-5d every 28 days) for 6 months. Patients treated with CRI were challenged prior to therapy with a single dose of IFN-α. The primary outcome measure was overall survival; the secondary measures were toxicity, progression free survival and quality of life. 110 patients were calculated to detect a difference in hazard on level α= 0.05 and with a power of 80%. Results: 110 patients from five centers in Germany and Italy were randomized from July 2004 and December 2007. Median (range) age was 63 (33-77) years; 60 (57%) were men. 104 (95%) were T3 tumors, 87 (79%) were node positive and 43 (39%) were R1 resections, and 33 (30%) were poorly differentiated tumors. Grade 3 or 4 toxicity (mainly neutropenia) was observed in 68% of CRI and 16% of 5FU/FA (mainly diarrhea). Side effects during the multimodular cycle 1 were manageable and patients recovered completely. There was no difference in quality of life between the treatment groups. Final analysis was carried out on an intention to treat basis with a minimum of 2 years follow-up. Median survival of patients treated with 5FU/FA was 28.5 [95% CI: 19.5, 38.6] months and for patients treated with CRI this was 32.1 [95% CI: 22.8, 42.2] months. Although survival curves are clearly separated the log-rank analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in survival estimates. There was a clear trend towards better response for high risk patients (R1, start of treatment > 8 weeks after surgery; p=0.11). CRI reduced the risk of local recurrence (29.3% vs. 55.6%; p=0.014). Pre-planned testing for predictive markers showed that patients treated with CRI who responded to single IFN-α challenge with a decrease in T helper cells and especially regulatory T cells or with a pronounced increase in NK cell mediated cytotoxicity had a significantly longer survival. Conclusions: This is the highest ever reported mOS for adjuvant PAC in a randomized trial. Unfortunately, this underpowered trial was not able to address the significance of CRI in PAC satisfactorily. There is evidence that especially high risk patients benefit from CRI; local control improved significantly. A strong immune response to a single IFN-α challenge is significantly associated with a good outcome. Confirmatory trials are needed. [Table: see text]


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4-5
Author(s):  
Rosa Ayala ◽  
Pau Montesinos ◽  
Eva Barragán ◽  
Joaquin Martinez-Lopez ◽  
Miguel A. Sanz ◽  
...  

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&lt;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&lt;0.001) and TP53 (5.9 vs 14%, p&lt;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&lt;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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document