No abstract

Background Erythropoiesis‐stimulating agents effectively improve the hemoglobin levels in a fraction of anemic patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Higher doses (HD) of recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO) have been proposed to overcome suboptimal response rates observed in MDS patients treated with lower “standard doses” (SD) of rhEPO. However, a direct comparison between the different doses of rhEPO is lacking. Methods A cohort of 104 MDS patients treated with HD was retrospectively compared to 208 patients treated with SD in a propensity score‐matched analysis to evaluate hematological improvement‐erythroid (HI‐E) rate induced by the different doses of rhEPO. The impact of rhEPO doses on survival and progression to leukemia was also investigated. Results Overall HI‐E rate was 52.6%. No difference was observed between different rhEPO doses (P = .28) in matched cohorts; in a subgroup analysis, transfusion‐dependent patients and patients with higher IPSS‐R score obtained a higher HI‐E rate with HD, although without significant impact on overall survival (OS). Achievement of HI‐E resulted in superior OS. At univariate analysis, a higher HI‐E rate was observed in transfusion‐independent patients (P < .001), with a lower IPSS‐R score (P < .001) and lower serum EPO levels (P = .027). Multivariate analysis confirmed that rhEPO doses were not significantly related to HI‐E (P = .26). There was no significant difference in OS or progression to leukemia in patients treated with HD vs SD. Conclusion SD are substantially equally effective to HD to improve anemia and influencing survival in MDS patients stratified according to similar propensity to be exposed to rhEPO treatment.

No abstract

Background: the Registro Italiano Trombocitemie (RIT) was activated mainly to evaluate the diagnosis and therapy appropriateness in the thrombocythemic patients with Ph-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) observed in the adhering centers. Objective: to evaluate how the diagnostic and therapeutic approach changed in the RIT patients diagnosed with thrombocythemic MPN in the last two decades. Methods: the RIT centers registered by a web-based system during the years 2005-2014 their thrombocythemic MPN patients, and semesterly updated their follow-up data. For patients diagnosed before 2005, the data on diagnosis and prior follow-up were retrospectively collected. The diagnostic process and the initial treatment (started into the first year after diagnosis) were comparatively analyzed in the patients diagnosed before and after 2005. Results: the RIT centers registered 2629 patients. 2388 of them, object of this analysis, were diagnosed between1995 and 2014: 1098 (46%) in the decade 1995-2004 (Group I), and 1290 (54%) in the decade 2005-2014 (Group II). The diagnostic process in the patients of Group II and Group I included bone marrow biopsy (BMB, performed into 1 year and before any cytoreduction): 85% vs 80%, p <0.001; clonality tests (JAK2 and/or others): 80% vs 9%, p<0.001; cytogenetic evaluation: 55% vs 57%, p 0.58; abdominal echography: 46% vs 41%, p 0.016. The patients of Group II, as compared with those of Group I, showed a similar gender distribution (M/F ratio 0.61 vs 0.65, p 0.452), and had at diagnosis: a higher age (median 60 vs 57 years, p <0.001; age >60 years in 50% vs 45% of cases, p <0.01); a similar rate of prior thrombosis (19% vs 19%), prior hemorrhage (3% vs 4%), CVRFs 69% vs 66%), splenomegaly (25% vs 25%), and hepatomegaly (22% vs 24%); a lower rate of disease-related symptoms (36% vs 40%, p 0.04); a higher rate of comorbidities (55% vs 51%, p 0.03). Moreover, they had: a lower platelet (PLT) count (median 737 vs 775 x 109/L, p <0.001; <600 x 109/L in 22% vs 14% of cases, p <0.001); a similar white blood cell (WBC) count (median 8.6 vs 8.5 x 109/L; >10 x 109/L in 28% vs 26% cases); a similar median levels of hematocrit (HCT %, in females 41.4 vs 41.0; in males 44.7 vs 44.6) and hemoglobin (Hb g/dL, in females 13.8 vs 13.6; in males 15.0 vs 14.9). The BMB, revised according to the WHO 2008 criteria, showed a not different distribution (p 0.21) of ET (64% vs 61%), ep-PMF (16% vs 17%), PMF (3% vs 2%), PV (4% vs 4%), and U-MPN (13% vs 16%. The JAK2 V617F mutation in patients of Group II (at diagnosis) and of Group I (after diagnosis) was found in 62% and in 58% of tested cases (p 0.054), respectively. The patients at high standard thrombotic risk were 58% vs 52%, p 0.004. In the patients of Group II and Group I the distribution of the treatment started into the first year was significantly different (p<0.001): AntiPLT 29% vs 24%, CYT 13% vs 16%, CYT+AntiPLT 49% vs 46%, CYT ± AntiPLT 62% vs 62%, AntiPLT ± CYT 78% vs 69%. The treatment CYT ± AntiPLT was started in the patients at high standard thrombotic risk with a rate of 81% vs 80%, respectively, and in the patients at low standard thrombotic risk in 37% vs 43% of cases, respectively. The initial treatment CYT±AntiPLT was related, in multivariate analysis, both in patients of Group II and Group I, with older age (>60 and 40-60 vs <40 years, p <0.001), higher PLT count (>1000 and 700-1000 vs <700 x 109/L, p <0.001), prior thrombosis (p <0.001), symptoms (p <0.001). Noteworthy, no relationship was found with JAK2 mutation, and WHO diagnosis. Conclusion: in the studied thrombocythemic MPN patients the real-life diagnostic approach was improved after 2005 not only due to the routine use of JAK2 tests, but also due to the higher rate of BMB done (85% vs 80%). The appropriateness of the cytoreductive treatment (CYT±AntiPLT started into one year from diagnosis) remained high in patients at high standard thrombotic risk (over 80% of cases were treated). Concomitantly, the inappropriate use of the cytoreductive drugs in patients at low standard thrombotic risk appreciably decreased (from 43% to 37% of cases). Moreover, it has to be remarked that the therapeutic approach was significantly influenced not only by older age and prior thrombosis, but also by thrombocytosis (PLT count >700 x 109/L), disease-related symptoms, and inconstantly by leukocytosis and CVRFs. Table Table. Disclosures Gugliotta: SHIRE Co.: Honoraria. Gugliotta:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria.