Treatment of anemia in myelofibrosis: focusing on novel therapeutic options

References

• Tefferi A. Primary myelofibrosis: 2023 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management. Am J Hematol. 2023;98(5):801–821. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36680511. doi: 10.1002/ajh.26857
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passamonti F, Harrison CN, Mesa RA, et al. Anemia in myelofibrosis: Current and emerging treatment options. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2022;180:103862. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2022.103862
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbui T, Thiele J, Gisslinger H, et al. The 2016 WHO classification and diagnostic criteria for myeloproliferative neoplasms: document summary and in-depth discussion. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8(2):15. doi: 10.1038/s41408-018-0054-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barosi G, Mesa RA, Thiele J, et al. Proposed criteria for the diagnosis of post-polycythemia vera and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis: a consensus statement from the international working group for myelofibrosis research and treatment. Leukemia. 2008;22(2):437–438. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404914
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Lasho TL, Finke CM, et al. Targeted deep sequencing in primary myelofibrosis. Blood Adv. 2016;1(2):105–111. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2016000208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervantes F, Dupriez B, Pereira A, et al. New prognostic scoring system for primary myelofibrosis based on a study of the international working group for myelofibrosis research and treatment. Blood. 2009;113(13):2895–2901. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-07-170449
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Lasho TL, Jimma T, et al. One thousand patients with primary myelofibrosis: the mayo clinic experience. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87(1):25–33. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2011.11.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passamonti F, Cervantes F, Vannucchi AM, et al. A dynamic prognostic model to predict survival in primary myelofibrosis: a study by the IWG-MRT (international working group for myeloproliferative neoplasms research and treatment). Blood. 2010;115(9):1703–1708. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-09-245837
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherber R, Dueck AC, Johansson P, et al. The myeloproliferative neoplasm symptom assessment form (MPN-SAF): international prospective validation and reliability trial in 402 patients. Blood. 2011;118(2):401–408. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-01-328955
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Hudgens S, Mesa R, et al. Use of the functional assessment of Cancer therapy–anemia in persons with myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis and anemia. Clin Ther. 2014;36(4):560–6. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.02.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines Version 3. 2022 Myelofibrosis. Accessed Apr, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Elli EM, Iurlo A, Aroldi A, et al. Deferasirox in the management of iron-overload in patients with myelofibrosis: a multicentre study from the rete ematologica lombarda (IRON-M study). Br J Haematol. 2019;186(5):e123–e126. doi: 10.1111/bjh.15964
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernández-Boluda JC, Correa JG, García-Delgado R, et al. Predictive factors for anemia response to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in myelofibrosis. Eur J Haematol. 2017;98(4):407–414. doi: 10.1111/ejh.12846
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crisà E, Cilloni D, Elli EM, et al. The use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents is safe and effective in the management of anaemia in myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib. Br J Haematol. 2018;182(5):701–704. doi: 10.1111/bjh.15450
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernández-Boluda JC, Martínez-Trillos A, García-Gutiérrez V, et al. Long-term results of prednisone treatment for the anemia of myelofibrosis. Leuk Lymphoma. 2016;57(1):120–124. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2015.1046866
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervantes F, Isola IM, Alvarez-Larrán A, et al. Danazol therapy for the anemia of myelofibrosis: assessment of efficacy with current criteria of response and long-term results. Ann Hematol. 2015;94(11):1791–1796. doi: 10.1007/s00277-015-2435-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gowin K, Kosiorek H, Dueck A, et al. Multicenter phase 2 study of combination therapy with ruxolitinib and danazol in patients with myelofibrosis. Leuk Res. 2017;60:31–35. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2017.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo X, Xu Z, Li B, et al. Thalidomide plus prednisone with or without danazol therapy in myelofibrosis: a retrospective analysis of incidence and durability of anemia response. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8(1):9. doi: 10.1038/s41408-017-0029-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thapaliya P, Tefferi A, Pardanani A, et al. International working group for myelofibrosis research and treatment response assessment and long-term follow-up of 50 myelofibrosis patients treated with thalidomide-prednisone based regimens. Am J Hematol. 2011;86(1):96–98. doi: 10.1002/ajh.21892
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa RA, Yao X, Cripe LD, et al. Lenalidomide and prednisone for myelofibrosis: Eastern Cooperative Oncology group (ECOG) phase 2 trial E4903. Blood. 2010;116(22):4436–4438. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-05-287417
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castillo-Tokumori F, Talati C, Al AN, et al. Retrospective Analysis of the Clinical Use and Benefit of Lenalidomide and Thalidomide in Myelofibrosis. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020;20(12):e956–e960. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.07.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Al-Ali HK, Barosi G, et al. A randomized study of pomalidomide vs placebo in persons with myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion dependence. Leukemia. 2017;31(4):896–902. doi: 10.1038/leu.2016.300
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masarova L, Verstovsek S, Kantarjian H, et al. Immunotherapy based approaches in myelofibrosis. Expert Rev Hematol. 2017;10(10):903–914. doi: 10.1080/17474086.2017.1366853
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Begna KH, Pardanani A, Mesa R, et al. Long-term outcome of pomalidomide therapy in myelofibrosis. Am J Hematol. 2012;87(1):66–68. doi: 10.1002/ajh.22233
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chowdhury O, O’Sullivan J, Barkas N, et al. Spliceosome mutations are common in persons with myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis with RBC-transfusion-dependence and correlate with response to pomalidomide. Leukemia. 2021;35(4):1197–1202. doi: 10.1038/s41375-020-0979-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa RA, Tefferi A. Palliative splenectomy in myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. Leuk Lymphoma. 2001;42(5):901–911. doi: 10.3109/10428190109097709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malato A, Rossi E, Tiribelli M, et al. Splenectomy in myelofibrosis: indications, efficacy, and complications. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020;20(9):588–595. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.04.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta V, Harrison C, Hexner EO, et al. The impact of anemia on overall survival in patients with myelofibrosis treated with ruxolitinib in the COMFORT studies. Haematologica. 2016;101(12):e482–e484. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2016.151449
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palandri F, Breccia M, Bonifacio M, et al. Life after ruxolitinib: reasons for discontinuation, impact of disease phase, and outcomes in 218 patients with myelofibrosis. Cancer. 2020;126(6):1243–1252. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32664
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervantes F, Ross DM, Radinoff A, et al. Efficacy and safety of a novel dosing strategy for ruxolitinib in the treatment of patients with myelofibrosis and anemia: the REALISE phase 2 study. Leukemia. 2021;35(12):3455–3465. doi: 10.1038/s41375-021-01261-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pardanani A, Tefferi A, Masszi T, et al. Updated results of the placebo-controlled, phase III JAKARTA trial of fedratinib in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis. Br J Haematol. 2021;195(2):244–248. doi: 10.1111/bjh.17727
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa RA, Kiladjian JJ, Catalano JV, et al. SIMPLIFY-1: a Phase III randomized trial of momelotinib versus ruxolitinib in janus kinase inhibitor-naïve patients with myelofibrosis. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(34):3844–3850. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.4418
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison CN, Vannucchi AM, Platzbecker U, et al. Momelotinib versus best available therapy in patients with myelofibrosis previously treated with ruxolitinib (SIMPLIFY 2): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2018;5(2):e73–e81. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30237-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oh ST, Talpaz M, Gerds AT, et al. ACVR1/JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor momelotinib reverses transfusion dependency and suppresses hepcidin in myelofibrosis phase 2 trial. Blood Adv. 2020;4(18):4282–4291. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002662
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verstovsek S, Gerds AT, Vannucchi AM, et al. Momelotinib versus danazol in symptomatic patients with anaemia and myelofibrosis (MOMENTUM): results from an international, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2023;401(10373):269–280. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02036-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Zhou H, Jiang Z, et al. Safety and efficacy of jaktinib in the treatment of Janus kinase inhibitor-naïve patients with myelofibrosis: results of a phase II trial. Am J Hematol. 2022;97(12):1510–1519. doi: 10.1002/ajh.26709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa RA, Vannucchi AM, Mead A, et al. Pacritinib versus best available therapy for the treatment of myelofibrosis irrespective of baseline cytopenias (PERSIST-1): an international, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4(5):e225–e236. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30027-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mascarenhas J, Hoffman R, Talpaz M, et al. Pacritinib vs best available therapy, including ruxolitinib, in patients with myelofibrosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(5):652–659. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5818
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerds AT, Vannucchi AM, Passamonti F, et al. A Phase 2 study of luspatercept in patients with myelofibrosis-associated anemia. Blood. 2019;134(Supplement 1):557–557. [Abstract]. doi: 10.1182/blood-2019-122546
   Google Scholar
• Gerds AT, Vannucchi AM, Passamonti F, et al. Duration of response to luspatercept in patients (pts) requiring red blood cell (RBC) transfusions with myelofibrosis (MF) – updated data from the phase 2 ACE-536-MF-001 study. Blood. 2020;136(Supplement 1):47–48. [Abstract]. doi: 10.1182/blood-2020-137265
   Google Scholar
• Talpaz M, Rampal RK, Verstovsek S, et al. CPI-0610, a bromodomain and extraterminal domain protein (BET) inhibitor, as monotherapy in advanced myelofibrosis patients refractory/intolerant to JAK inhibitor: update from phase 2 MANIFEST study. Blood. 2020;134. Paper 2163 [Abstract]. https://ash.confex.com/ash/2020/webprogram/Paper139842.html
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verstovsek S, Mascarenhas J, Kremyanskaya M, et al. Mechanistic basis and efficacy of targeting the β-catenin-TCF7L2-JMJD6-c-myc axis to overcome resistance to BET inhibitors. Blood. 2020;135(Supplement 1):1255–1269. [Abstract]. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019002922
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mascarenhas J, Kremyanskaya M, Patriarca A, et al. MANIFEST: pelabresib in combination with ruxolitinib for janus kinase inhibitor treatment-naïve myelofibrosis. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:4993–5004. [Abstract] doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01972
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verstovsek S, Hasserjian RP, Pozdnyakova O, et al. PRM-151 in myelofibrosis: efficacy and safety in an open label extension study. Blood. 2018;132(Supplement 1):686. [Abstract]. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-99-115362
   Google Scholar
• Verstovsek S, Talpaz M, Wadleigh M, et al. S828 A RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE BLIND PHASE 2 STUDY OF 3 DIFFERENT DOSES OF PRM-151 IN PATIENTS WITH MYELOFIBROSIS WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY TREATED WITH OR INELIGIBLE FOR RUXOLITINIB. Hemasphere. 2019;3(S1):367. [Abstract]. doi: 10.1097/01.HS9.0000561592.51072.9b
   Google Scholar
• Harrison CN, Garcia JS, Somervaille TCP, et al. Addition of navitoclax to ongoing ruxolitinib therapy for patients with myelofibrosis with progression or suboptimal response: phase II safety and efficacy. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(15):1671–1680. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02188
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Lasho TL, Begna KH, et al. A Pilot study of the telomerase inhibitor imetelstat for myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(10):908–919. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310523
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mascarenhas J, Komrokji RS, Palandri F, et al. Randomized, Single-Blind, multicenter phase II study of two doses of imetelstat in relapsed or refractory myelofibrosis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(26):2881–2892. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.02864
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerds AT, Savona MR, Scott BL, et al. Determining the recommended dose of pacritinib: results from the PAC203 dose-finding trial in advanced myelofibrosis. Blood Adv. 2020;4:5825–5835. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa RA, Barosi G, Harrison C, et al. Efficacy and safety of luspatercept versus placebo in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis on JAK2 inhibitor therapy and requiring RBC transfusions (INDEPENDENCE trial). Hemasphere. 2021;5:PB1702. [Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT05037760
   Google Scholar
• Harrison CN, Gupta VK, Gerds AT, et al. Phase III MANIFEST-2: pelabresib + ruxolitinib vs placebo + ruxolitinib in JAK inhibitor treatment-naive myelofibrosis. FutureOncol. 2022;18:2987–2997. doi: 10.2217/fon-2022-0484
   Google Scholar
• Mascarenhas J, Saab R, Brackman D, et al. Two phase 1b studies evaluating the safety and tolerability of BET inhibitors, ABBV-744 and Mivebresib, as monotherapies and in combination with ruxolitinib or navitoclax in patients with myelofibrosis. Blood. 2020;136(Supplement 1):18–19. [Abstract]. doi: 10.1182/blood-2020-137686
   Google Scholar
• Potluri J, Harb J, Masud AA, et al. A Phase 3, Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study evaluating navitoclax in combination with ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis (TRANSFORM-1). Blood. 2020;136(Supplement 1):4. [Abstract]. doi: 10.1182/blood-2020-139758
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dilley K, Harb J, Jalaluddin M, et al. A phase 3, open-label, randomized study evaluating the efficacy and safety of navitoclax plus ruxolitinib versus best available therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory myelofibrosis (TRANSFORM-2). Blood. 2020;136(Supplement 1):8. [Abstract]. doi: 10.1182/blood-2020-139247
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT05371964
   Google Scholar
• Mascarenhas J, Harrison CN, Kiladjian JJ, et al. Imetelstat in intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis refractory to JAK inhibitor: IMpactMF phase III study design. FutureOncol. 2022;18(22):2393–2402. doi: 10.2217/fon-2022-0235
   Google Scholar
• Asshoff M, Petzer V, Warr MR, et al. Momelotinib inhibits ACVR1/ALK2, decreases hepcidin production, and ameliorates anemia of chronic disease in rodents. Blood. 2017;129(13):1823–1830. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-09-740092
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa R, Harrison C, Oh ST, et al. Overall survival in the SIMPLIFY-1 and SIMPLIFY-2 phase 3 trials of momelotinib in patients with myelofibrosis. Leukemia. 2022;36(9):2261–2268. doi: 10.1038/s41375-022-01637-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Barraco D, Lasho TL, et al. Momelotinib therapy for myelofibrosis: a 7-year follow-up. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8(3):29. doi: 10.1038/s41408-018-0067-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oh ST, Mesa RA, Harrison CN, et al. Pacritinib is a potent ACVR1 inhibitor with significant anemia benefit in patients with myelofibrosis. Blood Adv. 2023;7:5835–5842. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2023010151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kubasch AS, Fenaux P, Platzbecker U. Development of luspatercept to treat ineffective erythropoiesis. Blood Adv. 2021;5(5):1565–1575. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenaux P, Platzbecker U, Mufti GJ, et al. Luspatercept in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(2):140–151. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908892
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappellini MD, Taher AT. The use of luspatercept for thalassemia in adults. Blood Adv. 2021;5(1):326–333. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002725
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gangat N, Tefferi A. Myelofibrosis biology and contemporary management. Br J Haematol. 2020;191(2):152–170. doi: 10.1111/bjh.16576
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feigenson M, Nathan R, Babbs K, et al. KER-050, a modified ActRIIA ligand trap, alleviates cytopenia arising from multiple etiologies. Blood. 2020;136(Supplement 1):38. [Abstract]. doi: 10.1182/blood-2020-140167
   Google Scholar
• Feigenson M, Nathan R, Materna C, et al. Ker-050, a novel inhibitor of Tgfβ Superfamily signaling, induces red Blood cell production by promoting multiple stages of erythroid differentiation. Blood. 2020;136(Supplement 1):34. [Abstract] doi: 10.1182/blood-2020-140364
   Google Scholar
• Kleppe M, Koche R, Zou L, et al. Dual targeting of oncogenic activation and inflammatory signaling increases therapeutic efficacy in myeloproliferative neoplasms. Cancer Cell. 2018;33(1):29–43.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.11.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Cai T, Lin X, et al. Selective inhibition of the second bromodomain of BET family proteins results in robust antitumor activity in preclinical models of acute myeloid Leukemia. Mol Cancer Ther. 2021;20(10):1809–1819. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-21-0029
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Freitas RM, da Costa Maranduba CM, de Freitas RM, et al. Myeloproliferative neoplasms and the JAK/STAT signaling pathway: an overview. Rev Bras Hematol Hemoter. 2015;37(5):348–53. doi: 10.1016/j.bjhh.2014.10.001
   PubMedGoogle Scholar