A user-friendly, frequently updated reference guide that aligns with international guidelines and protocols.
Introduction:
Epidemiology:
Etiology: Exact cause is not known
Pathogenesis:
1.
Hyperactivation of thrombopietin/MPL/JAK2 axis
and
Down-regulation of GATA1 expression
↓
Defective package of growth factors such as PDGF, Fibroblast growth factor, MMP9 and TGF beta in neoplastic megakaryocytes
↓
Inappropriate release of these growth factors
↓
These factors diffuse into intercellular milieu
↓
Proliferation of fibroblasts and neovascularization due to proliferation of capillaries
Fibroblasts are not clonal; hence they are not tumor cells. But hematopoietic cells are.
2.
Epigenetic Methylation of CXCR4 promoters
↓
Decreased CXCR4 mRNA
↓
Decreased CXCR4 expression on CD34+ cells
↓
Enhanced migration of CD34+ cells in blood (These cells have predisposition to differentiate into megakaryocytes)
3.
Increase in circulating endothelial cell progenitors + Release of EGFbeta, BFGF and VEGF from megakaryocytes
↓
Increased angiogenesis
4.
Over-expression of FKBP51 on megakaryocytes
↓
Resistance to apoptosis through calcineurin pathway
5.
Increased number of CD34+ cells exit from BM
↓
Filtered in spleen due to abnormal trafficking pattern
↓
Accumulate progressively and continue to proliferate
↓
Extramedullary hematopoiesis (myeloid metaplasia) and splenomegaly
Clinical Features:
Complications:
Investigations:
Grading | Description |
MF-0 | Scattered linear reticulin with no intersections (cross-overs). Corresponds to normal bone marrow |
MF-1 | Loose network of reticulin with many intersections, especially in perivascular areas |
MF-2 | Diffuse and dense increase in reticulin with extensive intersections, occasionally with focal bundles of collagen and/or focal osteosclerosis |
MF- 3 | Diffuse and dense increase in reticulin with extensive intersections and coarse bundles of collagen, often associated with osteosclerosis |
Fibrotic stroma is rich in Type 1 and 3 collagen. Reticulin stain principally stains type 3 collagen. Thick fibers with type 1 collagen stain with trichrome stain. Hence this stain is positive only in advanced disease.
Accelerated phase of PMF - 10-19% blasts seen in blood or marrow
Blast phase of PMF - ≥20% blasts in blood or bone marrow
Criteria for Diagnosis:
or presence of another clonal marker (By cytogenetics or NGS panel for myeloid neoplasms)
Or
Absence of minor reactive bone marrow reticulin fibrosis (Due to conditions such as infection, autoimmune disorder or other chronic inflammatoryconditions, hairy cell leukaemia or another lymphoid neoplasm, metastatic malignancy)
Prognosis:
International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS)
Prognostic variable | 0 Point | 1 Point |
Age in years | ≤65 | >65 |
WBC count (/cmm) | ≤25,000 | >25,000 |
Hemoglobin (gm/dL) | ≥ 10 | <10 |
Peripheral blood blasts (%) | <1 | ≥1 |
Constitutional symptoms | Absent | Present |
Risk Group | Points | Median survival |
Low | 0 | 135 months |
Intermediate 1 | 1 | 95 months |
Intermediate 2 | 2 | 48 months |
High | ≥ 3 | 27 months |
Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS)
Prognostic variable | 0 Point | 1 Point | 2 points |
Age in years | ≤65 | >65 |
|
WBC count (/cmm) | ≤25000 | >25000 |
|
Hemoglobin (gm/dL) | ≥ 10 |
| <10 |
Peripheral blood blasts (%) | <1 | ≥1 |
|
Constitutional symptoms | Absent | Present |
|
Risk Group | Points |
Low | 0 |
Intermediate 1 | 1 or 2 |
Intermediate 2 | 3 or 4 |
High | 5 or 6 |
DIPSS-PLUS Scoring system
Prognostic variable | Points |
DIPSS- Low risk | 0 |
DIPSS- Int-1 | 1 |
DIPSS- Int- 2 | 2 |
DIPSS- High risk | 3 |
Platelets <1lac/cmm | 1 |
Transfusion need | 1 |
Unfavorablekaryotype* | 1 |
* Unfavorablekaryotypes include: Complex karyotype or trisomy 8, 7/7q-, i(17q), 5/5q-, 12p-, inv(3) or 11q23 rearrangements
Risk Group | Points |
Low | 0 |
Intermediate 1 | 1 |
Intermediate 2 | 2 or 3 |
High | 4 to 6 |
MIPSS70+ v2.0 is a prognostic scoring system
Prognostic variable | 0 Point | 1 Point | 2 points | 3 points | 4 points |
Karyotype* | Other karyotype | Unfavorable karyotype | VHR karyotype | ||
HMR mutations (ASXL1, SRSF2, EZH2, IDH1, IDH2, U2AF1 Q157) | No HMR mutations | 1 HMR mutation | ≥2 HMR mutations |
| |
Absence of type 1/like CALR mutation | No | Yes |
|
| |
Presence of constitutional symptoms | No | Yes |
|
| |
Anemia severity | Mild or no | 8 to 9.9 in women and 9 to 10.9 in men | <8 in women and <9 in men |
|
|
≥2% circulating blasts | No | Yes |
|
|
* Cytogenetics:
Points | Risk group | 10-year overall survival | Median overall survival (years) |
0 | Very low risk | 86% | Not reached |
1 to 2 | Low risk | 50% | 10.3 |
3 to 4 | Intermediate risk | 30% | 7 |
5 to 8 | High risk | 10% | 3.5 |
9 to 14 | Very high risk | <3% | 1.8 |
Overall mean survival is 3-5 years
Pretreatment Work-up:
Treatment Plan:
Low risk patients with low platelet counts or complex cytogenetics may be evaluated for Allo-SCT.
For assessment of symptom burden refer to Myeloproliferative Disorders- Introduction- Click Here
Myelofibrosis with accelerated phase/ MF with blast phase
Response Criteria (Benefit must last for >12 weeks to qualify as response):
Complete response:
Partial response:
For Ruxolitinib, to assess symptom improvement, Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form is used, which is available here.
About Each Modality of Treatment:
Supportive Care:
Other Treatment Options:
Special Situations:
Secondary myelofibrosis:
Autoimmune myelofibrosis:
Figures:
Figure 2.5.1 - Primary myelofibrosis- Prefibrotic phase- Peripheral smear
Figure 2.5.2- Primary myelofibrosis- Fibrotic phase- Peripheral smear
Figure 2.5.3 - Primary myelofibrosis- Fibrotic phase- Bone marrow biopsy
Figure 2.5.4- Primary myelofibrosis- Fibrotic phase- Bone marrow biopsy- Reticulin stain
Recent advances:
Addition of Navitoclax to Ruxolitinib improves overall outcome in patients with primary myelofibrosis
Navitoclax is a BCL-XL/BCL-2 inhibitor. This drug was evaluated in high risk myelofibrosis patients who had suboptimal response to ruxolitinib. There was significant decrease in splenic size, decrease in total symptom score and improvement of hemoglobin levels. Follow-up bone marrow biopsy showed significant decrease in BM fibrosis.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.21.02188
Zinpentraxin alfa in myelofibrosis
Zinpentraxin alfa, a recombinant form of PTX-2, an antifibrotic protein, was studied in a phase II trial involving patients with myelofibrosis (MF). The trial included 27 patients who received zinpentraxin alfa either alone or with ruxolitinib. The primary endpoint, the overall response rate (ORR), was 33% at week 24. Some patients also experienced improvements in symptom scores and bone marrow fibrosis. Most adverse events were mild, with fatigue being the most common. Anemia and thrombocytopenia were infrequent, and serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in a small number of patients. Zinpentraxin alfa showed promise as a potential therapy for MF in this trial.
https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2022.282411
Pelabresib in Combination With Ruxolitinib in Naïve Myelofibrosis
In a phase II study (MANIFEST), the combination of the bromodomain and extraterminal domain inhibitor (BETi) pelabresib with ruxolitinib in JAK inhibitor-naïve patients with myelofibrosis showed promising results. At 24 weeks, 68% of patients achieved a spleen volume reduction of ≥ 35%, and 56% achieved a total symptom score reduction of ≥ 50%. Additional benefits included improved hemoglobin levels, reduced fibrosis, and a reduction in JAK2V617F-mutant allele fraction. The combination therapy was generally well-tolerated, with thrombocytopenia and anemia being the most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.01972
Upfront allogeneic transplantation versus JAK inhibitor therapy for patients with myelofibrosis
The study aimed to compare outcomes of patients aged 70 or below with myelofibrosis (MF) in chronic phase who received upfront JAK inhibitor (JAKi) therapy versus upfront allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in dynamic international prognostic scoring system (DIPSS)-stratified categories. The results showed that, for the entire cohort, median overall survival (OS) was longer for patients who received JAKi compared to upfront HCT. In patients with intermediate-2 and high-risk disease, median OS was not significantly different between JAKi and HCT. The study suggests that a universal upfront HCT approach for higher-risk MF may not provide significant benefits.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-023-02146-6
Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in patients with CALR-mutated myelofibrosis
The study analyzed outcomes of 346 CALR-mutated myelofibrosis (MF) patients who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) in 123 EBMT centers between 2005 and 2019. After a median follow-up of 40 months, the estimated overall survival (OS) rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 81%, 71%, and 63%, respectively. Patients receiving busulfan-containing regimens achieved a 5-year OS rate of 71%. Non-relapse mortality (NRM) at 1, 3, and 5 years was 16%, 22%, and 26%, respectively, while the incidence of relapse/progression was 11%, 15%, and 17%, respectively. Older age correlated with worse OS, while primary MF and HLA-mismatched transplants had a near-to-significant trend to decreased OS. Comparative analysis between CALR- and JAK2-mutated MF patients revealed better OS, lower NRM, lower relapse, and improved graft-versus-host disease-free and relapse-free survival in CALR-mutated patients.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-023-02094-1
Splenic irradiation for myelofibrosis prior to hematopoietic cell transplantation
This study investigated the safety and efficacy of splenic irradiation before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in patients with myelofibrosis who failed Janus kinase (JAK) inhibition. Among 59 patients, splenic irradiation led to significant spleen size reduction in 97% of cases, with a median decrease of 5.0 cm. The 3-year overall survival rate was 62%, and the 1-year non-relapse mortality was 26%. Splenic irradiation, when adjusted for confounders, was associated with significantly reduced relapse rates compared to immediate HCT or splenectomy, demonstrating its potential benefit in this patient population.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.27252
Momelotinib versus ruxolitinib in JAK inhibitor-naïve patients with myelofibrosis
This sub-analysis of SIMPLIFY-1 compared momelotinib and ruxolitinib in JAK inhibitor-naïve Japanese myelofibrosis patients. At 24 weeks, momelotinib showed a 50% spleen response rate (SRR) versus 44.4% with ruxolitinib. Total symptom score response was 33.3% for momelotinib and 0% for ruxolitinib, while transfusion independence rates were 83.3% and 44.4%, respectively. Momelotinib was well tolerated and reduced transfusion needs, with fewer grade 3/4 adverse events than ruxolitinib.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12185-024-03822-z
Treatment of myelofibrosis with refractory anemia with luspatercept
In this retrospective study, 18 patients with refractory anemic myelofibrosis were treated with luspatercept for at least 9 weeks. Erythroid response was observed in 44.4% of patients at week 12, 30.8% at week 24, and 50% by the end of follow-up. Hemoglobin levels significantly improved at all time points, and adverse events were mild, affecting 16.7% of patients. The relapse rate was low, with only two patients relapsing and one progressing to acute myeloid leukemia. Luspatercept demonstrated good efficacy and safety in treating anemia in myelofibrosis patients.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-024-05847-0
Autoimmune myelofibrosis: A Mayo Clinic series of 22 patients
In this study of 22 patients with autoimmune myelofibrosis (AIMF), 77% were female, with a median age of 45 years. Pancytopenia was present in 32%, and 59% required transfusions for anemia. Most patients (83%) had a history of autoimmune disease, and they were negative for JAK2, CALR, and MPL mutations. A complete response (CR), marked by resolution of cytopenias, was achieved in 74% of evaluable cases. First-line treatments included steroids alone or with immunosuppressants, cyclosporin, and mycophenolate, achieving CR in 54%, 50%, and 50% of cases, respectively. Rituximab as a salvage therapy was highly effective, with an 80% CR rate, offering a promising steroid-sparing option for AIMF
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.19499
Momelotinib as a safe and effective treatment option for cytopenic myelofibrosis patients
This real-world analysis of momelotinib in 60 myelofibrosis (MF) patients demonstrated significant improvements in anemia (84% hemoglobin rise), platelet counts (67%), and transfusion independence (21% within 4 weeks). Symptom relief occurred in 47% and spleen size reduced in 25% (median 6 weeks). Creatinine increases (17%) were manageable, and treatment discontinuation was rare (8% due to side effects). Momelotinib is effective and safe, even in heavily pre-treated cytopenic MF patients.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-024-05908-4
Efficacy and safety of fedratinib in patients with myelofibrosis previously treated with ruxolitinib
The FREEDOM2 trial evaluated fedratinib versus best available therapy (BAT) in patients with myelofibrosis relapsed, refractory, or intolerant to ruxolitinib. Among 201 treated patients, spleen volume reduction (SVR) ≥35% by cycle 6 was achieved in 36% of fedratinib-treated patients compared to 6% in the BAT group. Fedratinib was associated with higher rates of grade ≥3 adverse events (40% vs. 12%), primarily anemia and thrombocytopenia, but gastrointestinal side effects were manageable with prophylactic antiemetics and thiamine supplementation. These findings support fedratinib as a viable second-line therapy for patients with myelofibrosis post-ruxolitinib, with effective strategies to mitigate adverse effects.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(24)00212-6
An Initiative of
1299, 2nd Floor, Shanta Nivas,
Beside Hotel Swan Inn, Off J.M.Road, Shivajinagar
Pune - 411005
Maharashtra – India
CIN: U85190PN2022PTC210569
Email: admin@howitreat.in
Disclaimer: Information provided on this website is only for medical education purposes and not intended as medical advice. Although authors have made every effort to provide up-to-date information, the recommendations should not be considered standard of care. Responsibility for patient care resides with the doctors on the basis of their professional license, experience, and knowledge of the individual patient. For full prescribing information, including indications, contraindications, warnings, precautions, and adverse effects, please refer to the approved product label. Neither the authors nor publisher shall be liable or responsible for any loss or adverse effects allegedly arising from any information or suggestion on this website. This website is written for use of healthcare professionals only; hence person other than healthcare workers is advised to refrain from reading the content of this website.