Polycythemia Vera and Essential Thrombocythemia: Current Management

Hospital Physician: Hematology/Oncology. 2018 January;13(1):

February 6, 2018|Hematology and Oncology

Lorenzo Falchi, MD;Srdan Verstovsek, MD, PhD

Approach to Patients Refractory to or Intolerant of First-Line Therapy

According to the European LeukemiaNet recommendations, an inadequate response to hydroxyurea in patients with PV (or myelofibrosis) is defined as a need for phlebotomy to maintain hematocrit below < 45%, platelet count > 400 × 10³/µL, and a WBC count > 10,000/µL, or failure to reduce splenomegaly > 10 cm by > 50% at a dose of ≥ 2 g/day or maximum tolerated dose. Historically, treatment options for patients with PV or ET who failed first-line therapy (most commonly hydroxyurea) have included alkylating agents, such as busulfan, chlorambucil, or pipobroman, and phosphorus (P)-32. However, the use of these drugs is limited by the associated risk of leukemic transformation.^93,115,116 The use of IFN (or anagrelide for ET) is often considered in patients previously treated with hydroxyurea, and vice versa.

Ruxolitinib is a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor currently approved for the treatment of PV patients refractory to or intolerant of hydroxyurea.⁷ Following promising results of a phase 2 trial,¹¹⁷ ruxolitinib 10 mg twice daily was compared with best available therapy in the pivotal RESPONSE trial (N = 222). Ruxolitinib proved superior in achieving hematocrit control, reduction of spleen volume, and improvement of symptoms. Grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity was infrequent and similar in the 2 arms.¹¹⁸ In addition, longer follow-up of that study suggested a lower rate of thrombotic events in patients receiving ruxolitinib (1.8 versus 8.2 per 100 patient-years).¹¹⁹ In a similarly designed randomized phase 3 study in PV patients without splenomegaly (RESPONSE-2), more patients in the ruxolitinib arm had hematocrit reduction without an increase in toxicity. Based on the results of the above studies, ruxolitinib can be considered a standard of care for second-line therapy in this post-hydroxyurea patient population.¹²⁰

Ruxolitinib is also being tested in patients with high-risk ET who have become resistant to, or were intolerant of hydroxyurea, but currently has no approved indication in this setting.^121,122 Common side effects of ruxolitinib include cytopenias (especially anemia), increased risk of infections, hyperlipidemia, and increased risk of non-melanoma skin cancer.

Novel Agents

Novel agents that have been studied in patients with PV and ET are histone deacetylase inhibitors, murine double minute 2 (MDM2, or HDM2 for their human counterpart) inhibitors (which restore the function of p53), Bcl-2 homology domain 3 mimetics such as navitoclax and venetoclax, and, for patients with ET, the telomerase inhibitor imetelstat.¹²³

Disease Evolution

Cases Continued

Patient A’s PV has been well controlled with PEG-IFN alfa-2a 90 μg subcutaneously weekly. However, he now presents with a complaint of worsening fatigue and early satiety. On exam the patient appears ill and splenomegaly is appreciated 12 cm below the costal margin. CBC shows a WBC count of 2600/µL, hemoglobin 73 g/L, and platelets 122 × 10³/µL. Peripheral blood smear reveals leukoerythroblastosis and dacrocytosis. CBC 6 months ago was normal. A bone marrow biopsy is consistent with myelofibrosis.

After discontinuing hydroxyurea, patient B’s ET has been well controlled with anagrelide. However, for the past 4 weeks she has complained of severe fatigue and easy bruising. Physical exam reveals a pale, ill-appearing woman with scattered bruises. CBC shows a WBC count of 14,600/µL with 44% myeloblasts, hemoglobin 73 g/L, and platelets 22 × 10³/µL. CBC 6 months ago was normal. A bone marrow biopsy is consistent with leukemic transformation of ET.

Post-PV/Post-ET Myelofibrosis

Diagnostic criteria for post-PV and post-ET myelofibrosis are outlined in Table 4.

Fibrotic transformation represents a natural evolution of the clinical course of PV or ET. It occurs in up to 15% and 9% of patients with PV and ET, respectively, in western countries.¹²⁴ The true percentage of ET patients who develop myelofibrosis is confounded by the inclusion of prefibrotic myelofibrosis cases in earlier series. The survival of patients who develop myelofibrosis is shortened compared to those who do not. In PV patients risk factors for myelofibrosis evolution include advanced age, leukocytosis, JAK2V617F homozygosity or higher allele burden, and hydroxyurea therapy. Once post-PV myelofibrosis has occurred, hemoglobin < 10 g/dL, platelet count < 100 × 10³/µL, and WBC count > 30,000/µL are associated with worse outcomes.¹²⁵ In patients with ET, risk factors for myelofibrosis transformation include age, anemia, bone marrow hypercellularity and increased reticulin, increased lactate dehydrogenase, leukocytosis, and male gender. Management of post-PV/post-ET myelofibrosis recapitulates that of PMF.

Leukemic Transformation

The presence of more than 20% blasts in peripheral blood or bone marrow in a patient with MPN defines leukemic transformation. This occurs in up to 5% to 10% of patients and may or may not be preceded by a myelofibrosis phase.¹²⁶ In cases of extramedullary transformation, a lower percentage of blasts can be seen in the bone marrow compared to the peripheral blood. The pathogenesis of leukemic transformation has remained elusive, but it is believed to be associated with genetic instability, which facilitates the acquisition of additional mutations, including those of TET2, ASXL1, EZH2 and DNMT3, IDH1/2, and TP53.¹²⁷

References