Amy Zhou1, Amber Afzal1, Stephen T Oh2. 1. Division of Hematology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave, Campus Box 8125, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 2. Division of Hematology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave, Campus Box 8125, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. stoh@wustl.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The prognosis for patients with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) is highly variable. All Ph-negative MPNs carry an increased risk for thrombotic complications, bleeding, and leukemic transformation. Several clinical, biological, and molecular prognostic factors have been identified in recent years, which provide important information in guiding management of patients with Ph-negative MPNs. In this review, we critically evaluate the recent published literature and discuss important new developments in clinical and molecular factors that impact survival, disease transformation, and thrombosis in patients with polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and primary myelofibrosis. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies have identified several clinical factors and non-driver mutations to have prognostic impact on Ph-negative MPNs independent of conventional risk stratification and prognostic models. In polycythemia vera (PV), leukocytosis, abnormal karyotype, phlebotomy requirement on hydroxyurea, increased bone marrow fibrosis, and mutations in ASXL1, SRSF2, and IDH2 were identified as additional adverse prognostic factors. In essential thrombocythemia (ET), JAK2 V617F mutation, splenomegaly, and mutations in SH2B3, SF3B1, U2AF1, TP53, IDH2, and EZH2 were found to be additional negative prognostic factors. Bone marrow fibrosis and mutations in ASXL1, SRSF2, EZH2, and IDH1/2 have been found to be additional prognostic factors in primary myelofibrosis (PMF). CALR mutations appear to be a favorable prognostic factor in PMF, which has not been clearly demonstrated in ET. The prognosis for patients with PV, ET, and PMF is dependent upon the presence or absence of several clinical, biological, and molecular risk factors. The significance of additional risk factors identified in these recent studies will need further validation in prospective studies to determine how they may be best utilized in the management of these disorders.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The prognosis for patients with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) is highly variable. All Ph-negative MPNs carry an increased risk for thrombotic complications, bleeding, and leukemic transformation. Several clinical, biological, and molecular prognostic factors have been identified in recent years, which provide important information in guiding management of patients with Ph-negative MPNs. In this review, we critically evaluate the recent published literature and discuss important new developments in clinical and molecular factors that impact survival, disease transformation, and thrombosis in patients with polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and primary myelofibrosis. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies have identified several clinical factors and non-driver mutations to have prognostic impact on Ph-negative MPNs independent of conventional risk stratification and prognostic models. In polycythemia vera (PV), leukocytosis, abnormal karyotype, phlebotomy requirement on hydroxyurea, increased bone marrow fibrosis, and mutations in ASXL1, SRSF2, and IDH2 were identified as additional adverse prognostic factors. In essential thrombocythemia (ET), JAK2 V617F mutation, splenomegaly, and mutations in SH2B3, SF3B1, U2AF1, TP53, IDH2, and EZH2 were found to be additional negative prognostic factors. Bone marrow fibrosis and mutations in ASXL1, SRSF2, EZH2, and IDH1/2 have been found to be additional prognostic factors in primary myelofibrosis (PMF). CALR mutations appear to be a favorable prognostic factor in PMF, which has not been clearly demonstrated in ET. The prognosis for patients with PV, ET, and PMF is dependent upon the presence or absence of several clinical, biological, and molecular risk factors. The significance of additional risk factors identified in these recent studies will need further validation in prospective studies to determine how they may be best utilized in the management of these disorders.
Authors: Peter J Campbell; Linda M Scott; Georgina Buck; Keith Wheatley; Clare L East; Joanne T Marsden; Audrey Duffy; Elaine M Boyd; Anthony J Bench; Mike A Scott; George S Vassiliou; Donald W Milligan; Steve R Smith; Wendy N Erber; David Bareford; Bridget S Wilkins; John T Reilly; Claire N Harrison; Anthony R Green Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Peter J Campbell; Martin Griesshammer; Konstanze Döhner; Hartmut Döhner; Rajko Kusec; Hans C Hasselbalch; Thomas Stauffer Larsen; Niels Pallisgaard; Stéphane Giraudier; Marie-Caroline Le Bousse-Kerdilès; Christophe Desterke; Bernadette Guerton; Brigitte Dupriez; Dominique Bordessoule; Pierre Fenaux; Jean-Jacques Kiladjian; Jean-François Viallard; Jean Brière; Claire N Harrison; Anthony R Green; John T Reilly Journal: Blood Date: 2005-11-17 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Andreas Kreft; Guntram Büche; Maryam Ghalibafian; Thomas Buhr; Thomas Fischer; Charles James Kirkpatrick Journal: Acta Haematol Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.195
Authors: Animesh D Pardanani; Ross L Levine; Terra Lasho; Yana Pikman; Ruben A Mesa; Martha Wadleigh; David P Steensma; Michelle A Elliott; Alexandra P Wolanskyj; William J Hogan; Rebecca F McClure; Mark R Litzow; D Gary Gilliland; Ayalew Tefferi Journal: Blood Date: 2006-07-25 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Ruben A Mesa; Chin-Yang Li; Rhett P Ketterling; Georgene S Schroeder; Ryan A Knudson; Ayalew Tefferi Journal: Blood Date: 2004-09-23 Impact factor: 22.113