Myelodysplastic syndromes current treatment algorithm 2018

Myelodysplastic syndromes current treatment algorithm 2018 Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) include a group of clonal myeloid neoplasms characterized by cytopenias due to ineffective hematopoiesis, abnormal blood and marrow cell morphology, and a risk of clonal evolution and progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Because outcomes for patients with MDS are heterogeneous, individual risk stratification using tools such as the revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) is important in managing patients—including selecting candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT), the only potentially curative therapy for MDS. The IPSS-R can be supplemented by molecular genetic testing, since certain gene mutations such as TP53 influence risk independent of established clinicopathological variables. For lower risk patients with symptomatic anemia, treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) or lenalidomide (especially for those with deletion of chromosome 5q) can ameliorate symptoms. Some lower risk patients may be candidates for immunosuppressive therapy, thrombopoiesis-stimulating agents, or a DNA hypomethylating agent (HMA; azacitidine or decitabine). Among higher risk patients, transplant candidates should undergo ASCT as soon as possible, with HMAs useful as a bridge to transplant. Non-transplant candidates should initiate HMA therapy and continue if tolerated until disease progression. Supportive care with transfusions and antimicrobial drugs as needed remains important in all groups. Overview germline HFE mutations associated with hereditary Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are defined by inef- hemochromatosis may have an elevated risk of organ fective hematopoiesis resulting in blood cytopenias, and toxicity from iron overload with repeated red cell trans- clonal instability with a risk of clonal evolution to acute fusions. Functional defects in neutrophils or platelets may 1,2 myeloid leukemia (AML) . Patients with MDS collec- result in an infection or bleeding risk that is dispropor- tively have a high symptom burden and are also at risk of tionate to the degree of cytopenias . death from complications of cytopenias and AML . The Three drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug goals of therapy for patients with MDS are to reduce Administration (FDA) for use in MDS-related indications: disease-associated symptoms and the risk of disease pro- the orally administered immunomodulatory drug lenali- gression and death, thereby improving both quality and domide, and two parenterally administered nucleoside 4–6 quantity of life . analogs that are DNA hypomethylating agents (HMA), Because the median age at diagnosis of MDS is ~70 azacitidine, and decitabine. In addition to these agents, years, patients frequently have comorbid conditions that there is extensive off-label use of the erythropoiesis- 7,8 may influence outcomes and treatment approaches . For stimulating agents (ESA) epoetin and darbepoetin in instance, patients with established cardiovascular or pul- MDS, which is supported by National Comprehensive monary disease tolerate anemia poorly, while those with Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and therefore reim- 10,11 bursed by Medicare as a compendium use . No new drugs have been approved for MDS-related indications Correspondence: David P. Steensma (David_steensma@dfci.harvard.edu) since decitabine’s FDA approval in 2006 , underscoring Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to theCreativeCommons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Blood Cancer Journal 1234567890():,; 1234567890():,; Steensma Blood Cancer Journal (2018) 8:47 Page 2 of 8 Table 1 2012 revised international prognostic scoring system for MDS (IPSS-R) Parameter Categories and Associated Scores (Scores in italics) Cytogenetic risk group Very good Good Intermediate Poor Very Poor 01 2 3 4 Marrow blast proportion ≤2.0% >2.0–<5.0% 5.0–<10.0% ≥10.0% 01 2 3 Hemoglobin ≥10 g/dL 8–<10 g/dL <8 g/dL 0 1 1.5 9 9 Absolute neutrophil count ≥0.8 × 10 /L <0.8 × 10 /L 0 0.5 9 9 9 Platelet count ≥100 × 10 /L 50–100 × 10 /L <50 × 10 /L 0 0.5 1 Risk group Total Proportion of patients in Median survival (survival data Time until AML progression (AML data score category (%) based on n= 7012) (years) available based on n = 6485) (years) Very low 0–1.0 19 8.8 Not reached Low 1.5–3.0 38 5.3 10.8 Intermediate 3.5–4.5 20 3.0 3.2 High 5.0–6.0 13 1.5 1.4 Very high >6.0 10 0.8 0.7 Cytogenetic risk group, very good: -Y, del(11q); good: normal; del(5q) ± 1 other abnormality del(20q), or del(12p); intermediate:+ 8, i(17q), del(7q), + 19, any other abnormality not listed including the preceding with 1 other abnormality; poor: −7 ± del(7q), inv(3)/t(3q)/del(3q), any 3 separate abnormalities; very poor: more than 3 abnormalities, especially if 17p is deleted or rearranged Sum scores on a 0–10 point scale Source: adapted from Greenberg P et al, Blood 120(12):2454–65 the importance of clinical trial enrollment; currently only series have been published assessing the prognostic a small proportion of patients with MDS are enrolled in importance of individual mutations, the IWG-PM is prospective interventional studies. currently assessing the utility of specific mutations in 14,15 more than 3000 patients . Among DNA sequencing Risk stratification series already reported, TP53, NRAS, ASXL1, and EZH2 The most commonly used tool for risk stratification in mutations are consistently associated with poor outcomes MDS is the 2012 revised International Prognostic Scoring while SF3B1 mutations are associated with more favorable 16–18 System (IPSS-R; Table 1), which was based on a multi- outcomes . variate assessment of clinicopathological variables and The IPSS-R has several limitations in addition to its lack outcomes in more than 7000 patients, conducted by the of molecular genetic information. For example, the IPSS- International Working Group for Prognosis in MDS R is only validated for adult patients with de novo disease (IWG-PM) . The IPSS-R takes into account the number at the time of diagnosis, and it describes expected out- 19,20 and degree of cytopenias, proportion of blasts in the comes for those treated with supportive care alone . marrow, and risk of the specific cytogenetic abnormalities Future prognostic tools will hopefully be validated for a present. The IPSS-R stratifies patients into 5 risk groups; broader range of patients and will be dynamic, able to be collectively, the 2 lowest risk groups are often referred to applied at any time in the disease course. as ‘lower risk MDS’, while the 2 higher risk groups are Patients with therapy-related disease (t-MDS) asso- described as ‘higher risk MDS’. ciated with prior genotoxic exposure frequently have The intermediate risk IPSS-R group is heterogeneous, TP53 mutations or PPM1D mutations and a complex with some patients having a more indolent natural history karyotype . These patients were excluded from the IPSS- similar to lower risk MDS and others more aggressive R and should be considered to have very high risk disease. disease. This heterogeneity can be partly resolved by the Some patients with MDS have features of myeloproli- use of molecular genetic sequencing. While a number of ferative neoplasms, such as monocytosis (especially in Blood Cancer Journal Steensma Blood Cancer Journal (2018) 8:47 Page 3 of 8 chronic myelomonocytic leukemia) or extensive marrow discontinued early by a data safety monitoring committee fibrosis. These patients have a distinct pathbiology, with because of excess leukemia and other disease progression over-representation of mutations such as JAK2, SRSF2, in the active treatment arm, a more recent update with SETBP1, CSF3R, and BCOR compared to patients with five-year follow-up shows no difference in outcomes MDS without proliferative features, and require a spe- between patients treated on that study with romiplostim cialized treatment approach that is not discussed further or placebo . A randomized trial with eltrombopag in 22,23 here . Patients with secondary MDS after another combination with azacitidine in a similar patient popu- marrow failure syndrome (acquired aplastic anemia, par- lation also showed a slight increase in progression in the oxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, or a germline dis- active treatment arm . The dose of TPO mimetic order like Fanconi anemia or dyskeratosis congenita) also required to improve platelet count is typically higher in require a specially tailored approach. MDS than in the labeled indication of immune thrombocytopenia . Lower risk MDS Because growth factors have somewhat limited efficacy Some patients with MDS have mild cytopenias and are in MDS, anti-T cell immunosuppressive therapy (IST; e.g., asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis. Early treatment of antithrombocyte globulin, corticosteroids, and cyclos- MDS is not known to be beneficial in terms of preventing porine or tacrolimus) or HMA are frequently considered clonal evolution or death. Therefore, observation is for these patients, especially after failure of ESA or lena- appropriate for asymptomatic lower risk patients until lidomide. Selection of appropriate patients for IST is their cytopenias worsen or they become more challenging, as published reports are inconsistent about symptomatic. parameters that predict a higher likelihood of response; For patients with lower risk disease and anemia asso- however, excess blasts, therapy-related disease, and a ciated with MDS, two parameters are important in complex or monosomal karyotype predict lower like- treatment choice (Fig. 1). First, the serum erythropoietin lihood of response to IST . (sEPO) level reflects endogenous renal response to anemia A recent multicenter analysis of more than 300 MDS and is a strong predictor of the likelihood of clinical patients treated with IST other than corticosteroid response to ESA . Patients with lower risk MDS who monotherapy demonstrated that marrow cellularity less have a sEPO < 100 U/L have a greater than 70% chance of than 20% and blast proportion less than 5% were asso- responding to ESA, while for those patients with sEPO > ciated with a higher likelihood of transfusion indepen- 500 U/L, a trial of ESA is usually not warranted because dence and improved survival after immunosuppressive the response rate is <10%. Second, the presence of a therapy . In this multicenter series, information about clonally restricted deletion of the long arm of chromo- mutations that might predict response to IST such as some 5 including band q31 (del5q) is associated with a BCOR was not consistently available, but the presence of high erythroid response rate to lenalidomide (65–70% a paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) clone or transfusion independence, and 30–40% cytogenetic HLA DR15 status, which had been found to be of value in 25,26 remission) . Patients with a complex karyotype that predicting response in smaller (mostly single-center) includes del5q and those with excess marrow blasts series, did not predict IST response. A trial of IST is respond less well to lenalidomide treatment than those reasonable in a lower risk patient who lacks excess blasts whose disease lacks these features. Lower risk MDS or a complex karyotype and who either has (1) anemia patients with anemia who lack del5q have a 26% response that has not responded to ESA or lenalidomide, or has (2) rate to lenalidomide therapy, and a brief trial of lenali- another severe cytopenia that either has not responded to domide is reasonable in such patients, although this usage growth factors or where the clinician elects not to use 27,28 is off-label . growth factors or the patient’s insurance will not pay for For patients with lower risk MDS who have other severe growth factors. IST is a particularly attractive considera- cytopenias beyond anemia, the most appropriate treat- tion if the marrow is hypocellular for age. ment approach is less clear . Neutropenia in patients Recently, results were reported from a multicenter with MDS often does respond to use of myeloid growth adaptive randomization clinical trial of a reduced schedule factors, but these have never been shown to improve HMA (i.e., three days of azacitidine 75 mg/m2/d per survival in MDS and have minimal effect on reducing month, or three days of decitabine 20 mg/m2/d per 11 39 infection risk . The thrombopoiesis-stimulating agents month) in lower risk MDS and MDS/MPN . The overall (thrombopoietin (TPO) mimetics) eltrombopag (oral) or response rate in this series was higher with decitabine romiplostim (injectable) can reduce platelet transfusion (32% transfusion independence rate and 70% overall needs and clinically significant bleeding events in some response rate) than with azacitidine (16% transfusion 30–33 patients with severe thrombocytopenia . Although a independence rate and 49% overall response rate), so the randomized trial of romiplostim in lower risk MDS was adaptive randomization resulted in 65% of enrolled Blood Cancer Journal Steensma Blood Cancer Journal (2018) 8:47 Page 4 of 8 Fig. 1 MDS treatment algorithm as described in the text. Clinical trials should be considered for all patients, but is recognized that many patients will not have access to trials or will not be eligible for available trials or will not want to go on trials, especially those requiring travel to a major center. In fact only a very small proportion of patients with MDS are currently enrolled on prospective interventional trials. However, increased trial enrollment is an important goal given the continued poor outcomes with MDS. EPO erythropoietin, ESA erythropoiesis-stimulating agent, HMA DNA hypomethylating agent, IST immunosuppressive therapy (anti-thymocyte globulin, cyclosporine, or tacrolimus) patients being treated with decitabine compared to 35% anemia and ring sideroblasts. Luspatercept has not yet been well studied in patients without ring sideroblasts. with azacitidine. It is possible that three days of azaciti- dine represents underdosing even in lower risk patients and a randomized trial (NCT02269280) comparing five Higher risk MDS days of azacitidine to three days of decitabine or a sup- For patients with higher risk MDS, the first question portive care strategy is ongoing. The optimal dose and that must be answered is whether the patient is a candi- schedule of HMA in both higher risk and lower risk MDS date for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplanta- is unknown, and the doses and schedules of decitabine tion (ASCT). Two mathematical modeling analyses based and azacitidine used for patients with higher risk MDS are on Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant myelosuppressive and may have a less favorable risk- Research (CIBMTR) data—one analysis focused on con- benefit balance for those patients with lower risk MDS. Of ventional myeloablative transplant, the other inclusive of note, this trial of ‘lower risk’ patients enrolled 18% patients aged 60–70 years treated with a reduced-intensity patients with t-MDS and 19% with MDS/MPN overlap conditioning (RIC) approaches—show that life expectancy syndromes, who should not be considered lower risk. is improved by early transplant in this subgroup, if fea- 41,42 Clinical experience has shown that patients who fail to sible . Increased availability of alternate donors, respond to HMA rarely respond to IST, so IST after HMA including haploidentical donors and cord blood, mean is unlikely to be of value. that larger proportion of patients have the opportunity to Luspatercept is a fusion protein that binds to ligands of undergo SCT. Patients up to age 75 routinely undergo the activin II receptor, altering transforming growth factor transplant now, and in the future age may not be a lim- beta signaling and resulting in improved erythropoiesis in itation to ASCT if performance status remains excellent. some patients with lower risk MDS . A randomized trial While details about conditioning regimens for ASCT, of luspatercept versus placebo in patients with MDS and graft-versus-host prophylaxis and management, and post- ring sideroblasts (MEDALIST; NCT02631070) completed transplant infectious disease prophylaxis and pre-emptive accrual in 2017; if this trial is positive, it is likely that management are beyond the scope of this review, a recent luspatercept will be the next drug FDA approved for CIBMTR/Clinical Trials Network randomized trial of RIC MDS, and would be useful in lower risk patients with compared with myeloablative conditioning (MAC) is worth noting . This study enrolled patients aged 18–65 Blood Cancer Journal Steensma Blood Cancer Journal (2018) 8:47 Page 5 of 8 years with a low transplant comorbidity index and <5% however, if 5-day decitabine or azacitidine would be as marrow blasts, and randomly assigned them to receive effective as 10 day decitabine, and 10 day decitabine is MAC (n = 135) or RIC (n = 137) followed by ASCT from highly myelosuppressive with a high frequency of HLA-matched related or unrelated donors. While overall opportunistic infections. survival at 18 months was slightly higher with MAC, this HMA can decrease clonal burden and may therefore difference was not statistically significant. RIC resulted in result in improved hematopoiesis, but do not eradicate transformed stem cells, so relapse is inevitable. The lower treatment-related mortality but at the cost of higher relapse rates compared with MAC. These data support mechanism of action of HMA is unclear, and may result the use of MAC as the standard of care for patients with from a combination of conventional cytotoxic, DNA MDS who are able to tolerate more intense conditioning. hypomethylation (no specific signature), and immune- It is not clear whether treatment of higher risk MDS related mechanisms including changes in interferon sig- prior to ASCT is beneficial, but pre-transplant bridging naling and presentation of neoantigens as epitopes to the 52,53 therapy is often considered to cytoreduce disease, espe- immune system . This has led to difficulty in predict- cially for those patients who are going to go on to get RIC ing responders, and available molecular genetic assays do approaches and those who have more than 10% marrow not differentiate responders versus non-responders to an blasts . Pre-transplant cytoreductive therapy can also be extent that influences treatment selection. considered in those for whom there will be a delay in Once an HMA fails the patient, either via intolerance, transplant due to lack of donor availability or insurance resistance, or relapse after favorable response, there is no approval. In the past, intensive AML-type induction approved second-line therapy and the outlook is poor 54–56 chemotherapy was commonly used for pre-transplant with a median survival of less than six months . cytoreduction in MDS, but today HMA therapy is used far Addition of the bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax (an off-label more frequently and outcomes are at least as good with use) can recapture response and a subset of patients for HMA as with intensive chemotherapy . whom HMA alone is inadequate, and ongoing trials are For those patients who are not transplant candidates, evaluating venetoclax both after HMA failure HMA therapy is most appropriate. In a randomized trial (NCT02966782) and in treatment-naïve patients of 358 higher risk MDS patients, azacitidine treatment (NCT02942290) . The immune checkpoint (PD1, PDL1, was associated with a median survival of 24 months CTLA4) inhibitors, despite their high rate of efficacy in compared to 15 months in patients treated with intensive certain solid tumors, are of limited use as monotherapy in chemotherapy, low-dose cytarabine, or best supportive MDS, but are being evaluated in more than 10 different 46 58 care . A similar survival improvement has not been seen trials as combination therapy with HMA . Other com- in decitabine randomized studies, but these trials enrolled bination approaches including lenalidomide plus azaciti- a higher risk subgroup of patients and treated patients for dine and histone deacetylase inhibitors plus HMA have a shorter period of time, so that the trials are not com- not resulted in improved outcomes compared to HMA parable to the azacitidine study. These agents are con- alone despite in vitro synergy, largely due to excess 59–62 sidered comparable by most clinicians, with treatment myelosuppression and early treatment withdrawal .In choice left up to individual providers based on con- January 2018, it was announced that the ongoing INSPIRE siderations such as regional licensing of drug or local cost trial of the multikinase inhibitor rigosertib versus best considerations. Some studies of ‘real world’ experience supportive care in IPSS-R high and very high risk patients with azacitidine have not been able to replicate the sur- after HMA failure (NCT02562443) would increase its vival outcomes seen in the randomized trial, so the actual accrual goal because of promising early results. If the benefits of HMA may be less than has been commonly results are favorable, rigosertib would be the first drug presented . approved for second-line therapy in MDS. The optimal dose and schedule for each HMA is unclear; the best studied schedule of azacitidine is 75 mg/ Supportive care m per day for seven days every 28 days, whereas the most Support of patients with severe symptomatic anemia commonly used decitabine schedule for higher risk MDS with red cell transfusions and severe thrombocytopenia is 20 mg/m per day for five days every 28 days, which with platelet transfusions is a mainstay of therapy for 48–50 avoids weekend dosing . Lower doses have been stu- MDS. Fevers in patients with MDS must be taken ser- died in MDS but are not approved from a regulatory iously, and antimicrobial protocols for febrile neutropenia standpoint, and it is unclear if response rates mirror that followed carefully, as infection is the leading cause of 63,64 seen with the most widely studied regimens. Recently, a death in MDS . The benefit of prophylactic anti- very high response rate was reported with 10-day deci- microbials is controversial. tabine treatment in patients with higher risk MDS or For patients with thrombocytopenia who are refractory AML associated with a TP53 mutation . It is not clear, to platelet transfusions, the TPO agonists mentioned Blood Cancer Journal Steensma Blood Cancer Journal (2018) 8:47 Page 6 of 8 above may be of help, and the antifibrinolytic agents majority of patients diagnosed with MDS in 2018 will die epsilon-aminocaproic acid or tranexamic acid can reduce of complications of cytopenias . bleeding in some of those with recurrent mucosal 65 Acknowledgements hemorrhage . Androgens such as danazol or oxymetho- D.P.S. is supported by the Edward P. Evans Foundation. lone may improve hemoglobin or platelet count in a minority of patients, but liver tests must be monitored Conflict of interest Data safety monitoring committee: Janssen, Onconova, Takeda. Research during therapy and some older men may have difficulty support: H3 Biosciences, Celgene. Advisory board: Otsuka, Amphivena. with urinary retention due to an increase in prostate hyperplasia . Patients who receive repeated transfusions with red cells Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in may accumulate excess iron, which can cause tissue injury published maps and institutional affiliations. via generation of reactive free radicals. Iron chelation therapy with deferasirox or deferoxamine may be helpful Received: 29 January 2018 Revised: 9 February 2018 Accepted: 15 February in selected cases, but the effect of chelation on outcomes 2018 is controversial and such therapy is expensive (defer- asirox) or inconvenient (deferoxamine) . A randomized trial of deferasirox versus placebo in lower risk MDS References patients with red cell transfusion dependence and a serum 1. Tefferi, A. & Vardiman, J. W. Myelodysplastic syndromes. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, ferritin greater than 1000 ng/mL (TELESTO; 1872–1885 (2009). 2. Steensma, D. P. Myelodysplastic syndromes: diagnosis and treatment. Mayo NCT00940602) has completed accrual and results are Clin. Proc. 90,969–983 (2015). eagerly awaited. 3. Steensma, D. P. et al. Common troublesome symptoms and their impact on quality of life in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS): results of a large internet-based survey. Leuk. Res. 32,691–698 (2008). Future directions 4. Sekeres, M. A. & Cutler, C. How we treat higher-risk myelodysplastic syn- Dozens of novel agents are in development for MDS, as dromes. Blood 123,829–836 (2014). recently reviewed by Brunner and Steensma . These 5. Stone, R. M. How I treat patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood 113, 6296–6303 (2009). include luspatercept, rigosertib, immune checkpoint 6. Fenaux, P.&Ades,L.How we treatlower risk myelodysplasticsyndromes. inhibitors, and venetoclax, as mentioned above. In addi- Blood 121,4280–4286 (2013). tion, three new HMAs are in late phase clinical trials: 7. Sherman, A. E. et al. Geriatric assessment in older patients with acute myeloid guadecitabine (a parenterally administered dinucleotide leukemia: a retrospective study of associated treatment and outcomes. Leuk. Res. 37,998–1003 (2013). nucleoside analog formerly known as SGI-110), CC486 8. Sekeres, M. A. The epidemiology of myelodysplastic syndromes. Hematol. (an orally bioavailable form of azacitidine), and cedazurine Oncol. Clin. North. Am. 24,287–294 (2010). (formerly known as ASTX727, an orally administered 9. Boogaerts, M. A., Nelissen, V., Roelant, C. & Goossens, W. Blood neutrophil function in primary myelodysplastic syndromes. Br.J.Haematol. 55, 217–227 fixed-dose combination of decitabine and a cytidine dea- (1983). minase inhibitor). The oral HMAs may allow exploration 10. Greenberg, P. L. et al. Myelodysplastic Syndromes, version 2.2017, NCCN of extended doses and schedules compared to the avail- clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 15,60–87 (2017). able parenteral agents. Some patients who were failed by 11. Steensma, D. P. Hematopoietic growth factors in myelodysplastic syndromes. available HMAs responded to guadecitabine; a phase Semin. Oncol. 38,635–647 (2011). 3 study is ongoing in relapsed/refractory disease 12. DeZern, A. E. Nine years without a new FDA-approved therapy for MDS: how can we break through the impasse? Hematol. Am.Soc.Hematol.Educ.Pro- (NCT02907359) . Imetelstat, a telomerase inhibitor also gram. 2015,308–316 (2015). being studied in myeloproliferative neoplasms, is in a 13. Greenberg, P. L. et al. Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) for myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood 120,2454–2465 (2012). Phase 2 trial (NCT02598661) and transfusion indepen- 70 14. Lindsley, R. C. Uncoding the genetic heterogeneity of myelodysplastic syn- dence rates were ~30% in the first phase of this study .A drome. Hematol. Am. Soc. Hematol. Educ. Program. 2017,447–452 (2017). major priority is restoration of TP53 activity given the 15. Bejar, R. et al. Somatic mutations in MDS patients are associated with clinical features and predict prognosis independent of the IPSS-R: analysis of com- poor prognosis of patients with mutant or deleted TP53, bined datasets from the International Working Group for prognosis in MDS- and trials (NCT03072043) are ongoing with APR-246, a molecular committee. Blood 126, 907 (2015). TP53 modulator, and other agents in this subgroup. 16. Bejar, R. et al. Clinical effect of point mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 2496–2506 (2011). 17. Bejar, R. et al. Validation of a prognostic model and the impact of mutations in Conclusion patients with lower risk myelodysplastic syndromes. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, Treatment of patients with MDS requires appropriate 3376–3382 (2012). 18. Papaemmanuil, E. et al. Clinical and biological implications of driver mutations risk stratification and a tailored approach that depends on in myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood 122,3616–3627 (2013). quiz 99. the specific pattern and degree of cytopenias, sEPO level, 19. Hiwase, D. K. et al. Dynamic assessment of RBC-transfusion dependency presence of del(5q), marrow cellularity, and age and improves the prognostic value of therevised-IPSSin MDS patients. Am. J. comorbid conditions. New approaches are needed, as the Hematol. 92,508–514 (2017). Blood Cancer Journal Steensma Blood Cancer Journal (2018) 8:47 Page 7 of 8 20. Della Porta, M. G. et al. Validation of WHO classification-based Prognostic 42. Koreth, J. et al. A decision analysis of reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic Scoring System (WPSS) for myelodysplastic syndromes and comparison with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for older patiens with de-novo the revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R). A study of the myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS): early transplantation offers survival benefit International Working Group for Prognosis in Myelodysplasia (IWG-PM). Leu- in higher-risk MDS (Abstract #115). Blood 188, 115 (2011). kemia 29, 1502–1513 (2015). 43. Scott, B. L. et al. Myeloablative versus reduced-intensity hematopoietic cell 21. Wong, T. N. et al. Role of TP53 mutations in the origin and evolution of transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. J. therapy-related acute myeloid leukaemia. Nature 518, 552–555 (2015). Clin. Oncol. 35,1154–1161 (2017). 22. Padron, E. & Steensma, D. P. Cutting the cord from myelodysplastic syn- 44. Brierley, C. K. & Steensma, D. P. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation in mye- dromes: chronic myelomonocytic leukemia-specific biology and manage- lodysplastic syndromes: does pretransplant clonal burden matter? Curr. Opin. ment strategies. Curr. Opin. Hematol. 22, 163–170 (2015). Hematol. 23,167–174 (2016). 23. Patnaik, M. M. et al. Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia in younger patients: 45. Gerds,A.T.et al. Pretransplantation therapy withazacitidine vs induction molecular and cytogenetic predictors of survival and treatment outcome. chemotherapy and posttransplantation outcome in patients with MDS. Biol. Blood Cancer J. 5, e270 (2015). Blood. Marrow Transplant. 18,1211–1218 (2012). 24. Hellstrom-Lindberg, E. et al. A validated decision model for treating the 46. Fenaux, P. et al. Efficacy of azacitidine compared with that of conventional anaemia of myelodysplastic syndromes with erythropoietin+ granulocyte care regimens in the treatment of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a colony-stimulating factor: significant effects on quality of life. Br. J. Haematol. randomised, open-label, phase III study. Lancet Oncol. 10,223–232 (2009). 120, 1037–1046 (2003). 47. Ozbalak, M. et al. Azacitidine has limited activity in ‘real life’ patients with MDS 25. List, A. et al. Efficacy of lenalidomide in myelodysplastic syndromes. N. Engl. J. and AML: a single centre experience. Hematol. Oncol. 30,76–81 (2012). Med. 352,549–557 (2005). 48. Kantarjian, H. et al. Results of a randomized study of 3 schedules of low-dose 26. List, A. et al. Lenalidomide in the myelodysplastic syndrome with chromo- decitabine in higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome and chronic myelomo- some 5q deletion. N. Engl. J. Med. 355,1456–1465 (2006). nocytic leukemia. Blood 109,52–57 (2007). 27. Santini, V. et al. Randomized Phase III study of lenalidomide versus placebo in 49. Steensma, D. P. et al. Multicenter study of decitabine administered daily for RBC Transfusion-dependent patients with lower-risk Non-del(5q) myelodys- 5 days every 4 weeks to adults with myelodysplastic syndromes: the alter- plastic syndromes and ineligible for or refractory to erythropoiesis-stimulating native dosing for outpatient treatment (ADOPT) trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, agents. J. Clin. Oncol. 34,2988–2996 (2016). 3842–3848 (2009). 28. Fenaux, P. et al. A randomized phase 3 study of lenalidomide versus placebo 50. Lyons,R.M.etal. Hematologicresponse to three alternative dosing schedules in RBC transfusion-dependent patients with Low-/Intermediate-1-risk myelo- of azacitidine in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, dysplastic syndromes with del5q. Blood 118,3765–3776 (2011). 1850–1856 (2009). 29. Almeida, A. et al. Recent advances in the treatment of lower-risk non-del(5q) 51. Welch,J.S.etal. TP53 anddecitabineinacute myeloidleukemia and mye- myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Leuk. Res. 52,50–57 (2017). lodysplastic syndromes. N. Engl. J. Med. 375,2023–2036 (2016). 30. Brierley, C. K. & Steensma, D. P. Thrombopoiesis-stimulating agents and 52. Licht,J.D.DNA methylationinhibitors in cancer therapy: the immunity myelodysplastic syndromes. Br. J. Haematol. 169,309–323 (2015). dimension. Cell 162,938–939 (2015). 31. Mittelman, M. et al. Eltrombopag for advanced myelodysplastic syndromes or 53. Chiappinelli, K. B. et al. Inhibiting DNA Methylation causes an interferon acute myeloid leukaemia and severe thrombocytopenia (ASPIRE): a rando- response in cancer via dsRNA including endogenous retroviruses. Cell 162, mised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol. 5,e34–e43 (2018). 974–986 (2015). 32. Oliva, E. N. et al. Eltrombopag versus placebo for low-risk myelodysplastic 54. Montalban-Bravo, G., Garcia-Manero, G. &Jabbour,E.Therapeutic choicesafter syndromes with thrombocytopenia (EQoL-MDS): phase 1 results of a single- hypomethylating agent resistance for myelodysplastic syndromes. Curr. Opin. blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2 superiority trial. Lancet Haematol. 4, Hematol. 25,146–153 (2017). e127–e136 (2017). 55. Prebet, T. et al. Outcome of high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome after azaci- 33. Shastri,A.& Verma, A. K. Eltrombopag reduces clinically relevant thrombo- tidine treatment failure. J. Clin. Oncol. 29,3322–3327 (2011). cytopenic events in higher risk MDS and AML. Lancet Haematol. 5,e6–e7 56. Jabbour,E.etal. Outcomeofpatients with myelodysplastic syndrome after (2018). failure of decitabine therapy. Cancer 116,3830–3834 (2010). 34. Kantarjian, H. M. et al. Long-term follow-up for up to 5 years on the risk of 57. DiNardo, C. D. et al. Clinical experience with the BCL2-inhibitor venetoclax in leukaemic progression in thrombocytopenic patients with lower-risk myelo- combination therapy for relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukemia and dysplastic syndromes treated with romiplostim or placebo in a randomised related myeloid malignancies. Am.J.Hematol. 93,401–407 (2017). double-blind trial. Lancet Haematology 5, e117–e126 (2018). 58. Boddu, P. et al. The emerging role of immune checkpoint based approaches 35. Dickinson, M. et al. Abstract 37: SUPPORT, Eltrombopag in combination with in AML and MDS. Leuk. Lymphoma. 59, 790–802 (2018). azacitidine for first-line treatment of mds patients with thrombocytopenia: the 59. Sekeres, M. A. et al. Randomized phase II study of azacitidine alone or in randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III, support study. Leuk. Res. 55, combination with lenalidomide or with vorinostat in higher-risk myelodys- S23–S24 (2017). plastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia: North American 36. Sekeres, M. A. et al. Subcutaneous or intravenous administration of romi- Intergroup Study SWOG S1117. J. Clin. Oncol. 35,2745–2753 (2017). plostim in thrombocytopenic patients with lower risk myelodysplastic syn- 60. Garcia-Manero, G. et al. Phase 2, randomized, double-blind study of pracino- dromes. Cancer 117,992–1000 (2011). stat in combination with azacitidine in patients with untreated, higher-risk 37. Olnes,M.J.&Sloand,E.M.Targeting immune dysregulationinmyelodys- myelodysplastic syndromes. Cancer 123,994–1002 (2017). plastic syndromes. JAMA 305,814–819 (2011). 61. Cashen, A. et al. Phase II study of the histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat 38. Stahl M., et al. Abstract 422: The Use of Immunosuppressive Therapy (IST) in (PXD101) for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Ann. Hematol. patients with the Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS): Clinical outcomes and 91,33–38 (2012). their predictors in a large international patient cohort clinically relevant 62. Prebet, T. et al. Prolonged administration of azacitidine with or without enti- abstract. Blood 130, 2017. nostat for myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia with 39. Jabbour, E. et al. A randomized phase II study of low-dose decitabine versus myelodysplasia-related changes: results of the US Leukemia Intergroup trial low-dose azacitidine in lower risk MDS and MDS/MPN. Blood 130,1514–1522 E1905. J. Clin. Oncol. 32,1242–1248 (2014). (2017). 63. Dayyani, F. et al. Cause of death in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic 40. Platzbecker,U.etal. Luspatercept for the treatment of anaemia in patients syndrome. Cancer 116, 2174–2179 (2010). with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (PACE-MDS): a multicentre, open- 64. Steensma, D. P. Graphical representation of clinical outcomes for patients with label phase 2 dose-finding study with long-term extension study. Lancet myelodysplastic syndromes. Leuk. Lymphoma 57,17–20 (2016). Oncol. 18,1338–1347 (2017). 65. Salacz, M. E., Lankiewicz, M. W. & Weissman, D. E. Management of thrombo- 41. Cutler, C. S. et al. A decision analysis of allogeneic bone marrow transplan- cytopenia in bone marrow failure: a review. J. Palliat. Med. 10, 236–244 (2007). tation for the myelodysplastic syndromes: delayed transplantation for low-risk 66. Chan, G., DiVenuti, G. & Miller, K. Danazol for the treatment of thrombocyto- myelodysplasia is associated with improved outcome. Blood 104,579–585 penia in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome. Am.J.Hematol. 71, 166–171 (2004). (2002). Blood Cancer Journal Steensma Blood Cancer Journal (2018) 8:47 Page 8 of 8 67. Steensma, D. P. & Gattermann, N. When is iron overload deleterious, and 69. Issa, J. P. et al. Safety and tolerability of guadecitabine (SGI-110) in patients with when and how should iron chelation therapy be administered in myelo- myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia: a multicentre, ran- dysplastic syndromes? Best Pract. Res. Clin. Haematol. 26, 431–444 (2013). domised, dose-escalation phase 1 study. Lancet Oncol. 16,1099–1110 (2015). 68. Brunner, A. M., & Steensma, D. P. Recent advances in the cellular and mole- 70. Fenaux, P. et al. Efficacy and safety of imetelstat inRBC transfusion-dependent cular understanding of myelodysplastic syndromes and implications for new (TD) IPSS Low/Int-1 MDS Relapsed/Refractory to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating therapeutic approaches. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 16,56–66 (2018). Agents (ESA) (IMerge). Blood 130, 4256 (2017). Blood Cancer Journal http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Blood Cancer Journal Springer Journals

Myelodysplastic syndromes current treatment algorithm 2018

Free
8 pages
Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/myelodysplastic-syndromes-current-treatment-algorithm-2018-uqUHtGMbia
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by The Author(s)
Subject
Biomedicine; Biomedicine, general; Cancer Research; Oncology; Hematology
eISSN
2044-5385
D.O.I.
10.1038/s41408-018-0085-4
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) include a group of clonal myeloid neoplasms characterized by cytopenias due to ineffective hematopoiesis, abnormal blood and marrow cell morphology, and a risk of clonal evolution and progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Because outcomes for patients with MDS are heterogeneous, individual risk stratification using tools such as the revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) is important in managing patients—including selecting candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT), the only potentially curative therapy for MDS. The IPSS-R can be supplemented by molecular genetic testing, since certain gene mutations such as TP53 influence risk independent of established clinicopathological variables. For lower risk patients with symptomatic anemia, treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) or lenalidomide (especially for those with deletion of chromosome 5q) can ameliorate symptoms. Some lower risk patients may be candidates for immunosuppressive therapy, thrombopoiesis-stimulating agents, or a DNA hypomethylating agent (HMA; azacitidine or decitabine). Among higher risk patients, transplant candidates should undergo ASCT as soon as possible, with HMAs useful as a bridge to transplant. Non-transplant candidates should initiate HMA therapy and continue if tolerated until disease progression. Supportive care with transfusions and antimicrobial drugs as needed remains important in all groups. Overview germline HFE mutations associated with hereditary Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are defined by inef- hemochromatosis may have an elevated risk of organ fective hematopoiesis resulting in blood cytopenias, and toxicity from iron overload with repeated red cell trans- clonal instability with a risk of clonal evolution to acute fusions. Functional defects in neutrophils or platelets may 1,2 myeloid leukemia (AML) . Patients with MDS collec- result in an infection or bleeding risk that is dispropor- tively have a high symptom burden and are also at risk of tionate to the degree of cytopenias . death from complications of cytopenias and AML . The Three drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug goals of therapy for patients with MDS are to reduce Administration (FDA) for use in MDS-related indications: disease-associated symptoms and the risk of disease pro- the orally administered immunomodulatory drug lenali- gression and death, thereby improving both quality and domide, and two parenterally administered nucleoside 4–6 quantity of life . analogs that are DNA hypomethylating agents (HMA), Because the median age at diagnosis of MDS is ~70 azacitidine, and decitabine. In addition to these agents, years, patients frequently have comorbid conditions that there is extensive off-label use of the erythropoiesis- 7,8 may influence outcomes and treatment approaches . For stimulating agents (ESA) epoetin and darbepoetin in instance, patients with established cardiovascular or pul- MDS, which is supported by National Comprehensive monary disease tolerate anemia poorly, while those with Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and therefore reim- 10,11 bursed by Medicare as a compendium use . No new drugs have been approved for MDS-related indications Correspondence: David P. Steensma (David_steensma@dfci.harvard.edu) since decitabine’s FDA approval in 2006 , underscoring Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to theCreativeCommons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Blood Cancer Journal 1234567890():,; 1234567890():,; Steensma Blood Cancer Journal (2018) 8:47 Page 2 of 8 Table 1 2012 revised international prognostic scoring system for MDS (IPSS-R) Parameter Categories and Associated Scores (Scores in italics) Cytogenetic risk group Very good Good Intermediate Poor Very Poor 01 2 3 4 Marrow blast proportion ≤2.0% >2.0–<5.0% 5.0–<10.0% ≥10.0% 01 2 3 Hemoglobin ≥10 g/dL 8–<10 g/dL <8 g/dL 0 1 1.5 9 9 Absolute neutrophil count ≥0.8 × 10 /L <0.8 × 10 /L 0 0.5 9 9 9 Platelet count ≥100 × 10 /L 50–100 × 10 /L <50 × 10 /L 0 0.5 1 Risk group Total Proportion of patients in Median survival (survival data Time until AML progression (AML data score category (%) based on n= 7012) (years) available based on n = 6485) (years) Very low 0–1.0 19 8.8 Not reached Low 1.5–3.0 38 5.3 10.8 Intermediate 3.5–4.5 20 3.0 3.2 High 5.0–6.0 13 1.5 1.4 Very high >6.0 10 0.8 0.7 Cytogenetic risk group, very good: -Y, del(11q); good: normal; del(5q) ± 1 other abnormality del(20q), or del(12p); intermediate:+ 8, i(17q), del(7q), + 19, any other abnormality not listed including the preceding with 1 other abnormality; poor: −7 ± del(7q), inv(3)/t(3q)/del(3q), any 3 separate abnormalities; very poor: more than 3 abnormalities, especially if 17p is deleted or rearranged Sum scores on a 0–10 point scale Source: adapted from Greenberg P et al, Blood 120(12):2454–65 the importance of clinical trial enrollment; currently only series have been published assessing the prognostic a small proportion of patients with MDS are enrolled in importance of individual mutations, the IWG-PM is prospective interventional studies. currently assessing the utility of specific mutations in 14,15 more than 3000 patients . Among DNA sequencing Risk stratification series already reported, TP53, NRAS, ASXL1, and EZH2 The most commonly used tool for risk stratification in mutations are consistently associated with poor outcomes MDS is the 2012 revised International Prognostic Scoring while SF3B1 mutations are associated with more favorable 16–18 System (IPSS-R; Table 1), which was based on a multi- outcomes . variate assessment of clinicopathological variables and The IPSS-R has several limitations in addition to its lack outcomes in more than 7000 patients, conducted by the of molecular genetic information. For example, the IPSS- International Working Group for Prognosis in MDS R is only validated for adult patients with de novo disease (IWG-PM) . The IPSS-R takes into account the number at the time of diagnosis, and it describes expected out- 19,20 and degree of cytopenias, proportion of blasts in the comes for those treated with supportive care alone . marrow, and risk of the specific cytogenetic abnormalities Future prognostic tools will hopefully be validated for a present. The IPSS-R stratifies patients into 5 risk groups; broader range of patients and will be dynamic, able to be collectively, the 2 lowest risk groups are often referred to applied at any time in the disease course. as ‘lower risk MDS’, while the 2 higher risk groups are Patients with therapy-related disease (t-MDS) asso- described as ‘higher risk MDS’. ciated with prior genotoxic exposure frequently have The intermediate risk IPSS-R group is heterogeneous, TP53 mutations or PPM1D mutations and a complex with some patients having a more indolent natural history karyotype . These patients were excluded from the IPSS- similar to lower risk MDS and others more aggressive R and should be considered to have very high risk disease. disease. This heterogeneity can be partly resolved by the Some patients with MDS have features of myeloproli- use of molecular genetic sequencing. While a number of ferative neoplasms, such as monocytosis (especially in Blood Cancer Journal Steensma Blood Cancer Journal (2018) 8:47 Page 3 of 8 chronic myelomonocytic leukemia) or extensive marrow discontinued early by a data safety monitoring committee fibrosis. These patients have a distinct pathbiology, with because of excess leukemia and other disease progression over-representation of mutations such as JAK2, SRSF2, in the active treatment arm, a more recent update with SETBP1, CSF3R, and BCOR compared to patients with five-year follow-up shows no difference in outcomes MDS without proliferative features, and require a spe- between patients treated on that study with romiplostim cialized treatment approach that is not discussed further or placebo . A randomized trial with eltrombopag in 22,23 here . Patients with secondary MDS after another combination with azacitidine in a similar patient popu- marrow failure syndrome (acquired aplastic anemia, par- lation also showed a slight increase in progression in the oxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, or a germline dis- active treatment arm . The dose of TPO mimetic order like Fanconi anemia or dyskeratosis congenita) also required to improve platelet count is typically higher in require a specially tailored approach. MDS than in the labeled indication of immune thrombocytopenia . Lower risk MDS Because growth factors have somewhat limited efficacy Some patients with MDS have mild cytopenias and are in MDS, anti-T cell immunosuppressive therapy (IST; e.g., asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis. Early treatment of antithrombocyte globulin, corticosteroids, and cyclos- MDS is not known to be beneficial in terms of preventing porine or tacrolimus) or HMA are frequently considered clonal evolution or death. Therefore, observation is for these patients, especially after failure of ESA or lena- appropriate for asymptomatic lower risk patients until lidomide. Selection of appropriate patients for IST is their cytopenias worsen or they become more challenging, as published reports are inconsistent about symptomatic. parameters that predict a higher likelihood of response; For patients with lower risk disease and anemia asso- however, excess blasts, therapy-related disease, and a ciated with MDS, two parameters are important in complex or monosomal karyotype predict lower like- treatment choice (Fig. 1). First, the serum erythropoietin lihood of response to IST . (sEPO) level reflects endogenous renal response to anemia A recent multicenter analysis of more than 300 MDS and is a strong predictor of the likelihood of clinical patients treated with IST other than corticosteroid response to ESA . Patients with lower risk MDS who monotherapy demonstrated that marrow cellularity less have a sEPO < 100 U/L have a greater than 70% chance of than 20% and blast proportion less than 5% were asso- responding to ESA, while for those patients with sEPO > ciated with a higher likelihood of transfusion indepen- 500 U/L, a trial of ESA is usually not warranted because dence and improved survival after immunosuppressive the response rate is <10%. Second, the presence of a therapy . In this multicenter series, information about clonally restricted deletion of the long arm of chromo- mutations that might predict response to IST such as some 5 including band q31 (del5q) is associated with a BCOR was not consistently available, but the presence of high erythroid response rate to lenalidomide (65–70% a paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) clone or transfusion independence, and 30–40% cytogenetic HLA DR15 status, which had been found to be of value in 25,26 remission) . Patients with a complex karyotype that predicting response in smaller (mostly single-center) includes del5q and those with excess marrow blasts series, did not predict IST response. A trial of IST is respond less well to lenalidomide treatment than those reasonable in a lower risk patient who lacks excess blasts whose disease lacks these features. Lower risk MDS or a complex karyotype and who either has (1) anemia patients with anemia who lack del5q have a 26% response that has not responded to ESA or lenalidomide, or has (2) rate to lenalidomide therapy, and a brief trial of lenali- another severe cytopenia that either has not responded to domide is reasonable in such patients, although this usage growth factors or where the clinician elects not to use 27,28 is off-label . growth factors or the patient’s insurance will not pay for For patients with lower risk MDS who have other severe growth factors. IST is a particularly attractive considera- cytopenias beyond anemia, the most appropriate treat- tion if the marrow is hypocellular for age. ment approach is less clear . Neutropenia in patients Recently, results were reported from a multicenter with MDS often does respond to use of myeloid growth adaptive randomization clinical trial of a reduced schedule factors, but these have never been shown to improve HMA (i.e., three days of azacitidine 75 mg/m2/d per survival in MDS and have minimal effect on reducing month, or three days of decitabine 20 mg/m2/d per 11 39 infection risk . The thrombopoiesis-stimulating agents month) in lower risk MDS and MDS/MPN . The overall (thrombopoietin (TPO) mimetics) eltrombopag (oral) or response rate in this series was higher with decitabine romiplostim (injectable) can reduce platelet transfusion (32% transfusion independence rate and 70% overall needs and clinically significant bleeding events in some response rate) than with azacitidine (16% transfusion 30–33 patients with severe thrombocytopenia . Although a independence rate and 49% overall response rate), so the randomized trial of romiplostim in lower risk MDS was adaptive randomization resulted in 65% of enrolled Blood Cancer Journal Steensma Blood Cancer Journal (2018) 8:47 Page 4 of 8 Fig. 1 MDS treatment algorithm as described in the text. Clinical trials should be considered for all patients, but is recognized that many patients will not have access to trials or will not be eligible for available trials or will not want to go on trials, especially those requiring travel to a major center. In fact only a very small proportion of patients with MDS are currently enrolled on prospective interventional trials. However, increased trial enrollment is an important goal given the continued poor outcomes with MDS. EPO erythropoietin, ESA erythropoiesis-stimulating agent, HMA DNA hypomethylating agent, IST immunosuppressive therapy (anti-thymocyte globulin, cyclosporine, or tacrolimus) patients being treated with decitabine compared to 35% anemia and ring sideroblasts. Luspatercept has not yet been well studied in patients without ring sideroblasts. with azacitidine. It is possible that three days of azaciti- dine represents underdosing even in lower risk patients and a randomized trial (NCT02269280) comparing five Higher risk MDS days of azacitidine to three days of decitabine or a sup- For patients with higher risk MDS, the first question portive care strategy is ongoing. The optimal dose and that must be answered is whether the patient is a candi- schedule of HMA in both higher risk and lower risk MDS date for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplanta- is unknown, and the doses and schedules of decitabine tion (ASCT). Two mathematical modeling analyses based and azacitidine used for patients with higher risk MDS are on Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant myelosuppressive and may have a less favorable risk- Research (CIBMTR) data—one analysis focused on con- benefit balance for those patients with lower risk MDS. Of ventional myeloablative transplant, the other inclusive of note, this trial of ‘lower risk’ patients enrolled 18% patients aged 60–70 years treated with a reduced-intensity patients with t-MDS and 19% with MDS/MPN overlap conditioning (RIC) approaches—show that life expectancy syndromes, who should not be considered lower risk. is improved by early transplant in this subgroup, if fea- 41,42 Clinical experience has shown that patients who fail to sible . Increased availability of alternate donors, respond to HMA rarely respond to IST, so IST after HMA including haploidentical donors and cord blood, mean is unlikely to be of value. that larger proportion of patients have the opportunity to Luspatercept is a fusion protein that binds to ligands of undergo SCT. Patients up to age 75 routinely undergo the activin II receptor, altering transforming growth factor transplant now, and in the future age may not be a lim- beta signaling and resulting in improved erythropoiesis in itation to ASCT if performance status remains excellent. some patients with lower risk MDS . A randomized trial While details about conditioning regimens for ASCT, of luspatercept versus placebo in patients with MDS and graft-versus-host prophylaxis and management, and post- ring sideroblasts (MEDALIST; NCT02631070) completed transplant infectious disease prophylaxis and pre-emptive accrual in 2017; if this trial is positive, it is likely that management are beyond the scope of this review, a recent luspatercept will be the next drug FDA approved for CIBMTR/Clinical Trials Network randomized trial of RIC MDS, and would be useful in lower risk patients with compared with myeloablative conditioning (MAC) is worth noting . This study enrolled patients aged 18–65 Blood Cancer Journal Steensma Blood Cancer Journal (2018) 8:47 Page 5 of 8 years with a low transplant comorbidity index and <5% however, if 5-day decitabine or azacitidine would be as marrow blasts, and randomly assigned them to receive effective as 10 day decitabine, and 10 day decitabine is MAC (n = 135) or RIC (n = 137) followed by ASCT from highly myelosuppressive with a high frequency of HLA-matched related or unrelated donors. While overall opportunistic infections. survival at 18 months was slightly higher with MAC, this HMA can decrease clonal burden and may therefore difference was not statistically significant. RIC resulted in result in improved hematopoiesis, but do not eradicate transformed stem cells, so relapse is inevitable. The lower treatment-related mortality but at the cost of higher relapse rates compared with MAC. These data support mechanism of action of HMA is unclear, and may result the use of MAC as the standard of care for patients with from a combination of conventional cytotoxic, DNA MDS who are able to tolerate more intense conditioning. hypomethylation (no specific signature), and immune- It is not clear whether treatment of higher risk MDS related mechanisms including changes in interferon sig- prior to ASCT is beneficial, but pre-transplant bridging naling and presentation of neoantigens as epitopes to the 52,53 therapy is often considered to cytoreduce disease, espe- immune system . This has led to difficulty in predict- cially for those patients who are going to go on to get RIC ing responders, and available molecular genetic assays do approaches and those who have more than 10% marrow not differentiate responders versus non-responders to an blasts . Pre-transplant cytoreductive therapy can also be extent that influences treatment selection. considered in those for whom there will be a delay in Once an HMA fails the patient, either via intolerance, transplant due to lack of donor availability or insurance resistance, or relapse after favorable response, there is no approval. In the past, intensive AML-type induction approved second-line therapy and the outlook is poor 54–56 chemotherapy was commonly used for pre-transplant with a median survival of less than six months . cytoreduction in MDS, but today HMA therapy is used far Addition of the bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax (an off-label more frequently and outcomes are at least as good with use) can recapture response and a subset of patients for HMA as with intensive chemotherapy . whom HMA alone is inadequate, and ongoing trials are For those patients who are not transplant candidates, evaluating venetoclax both after HMA failure HMA therapy is most appropriate. In a randomized trial (NCT02966782) and in treatment-naïve patients of 358 higher risk MDS patients, azacitidine treatment (NCT02942290) . The immune checkpoint (PD1, PDL1, was associated with a median survival of 24 months CTLA4) inhibitors, despite their high rate of efficacy in compared to 15 months in patients treated with intensive certain solid tumors, are of limited use as monotherapy in chemotherapy, low-dose cytarabine, or best supportive MDS, but are being evaluated in more than 10 different 46 58 care . A similar survival improvement has not been seen trials as combination therapy with HMA . Other com- in decitabine randomized studies, but these trials enrolled bination approaches including lenalidomide plus azaciti- a higher risk subgroup of patients and treated patients for dine and histone deacetylase inhibitors plus HMA have a shorter period of time, so that the trials are not com- not resulted in improved outcomes compared to HMA parable to the azacitidine study. These agents are con- alone despite in vitro synergy, largely due to excess 59–62 sidered comparable by most clinicians, with treatment myelosuppression and early treatment withdrawal .In choice left up to individual providers based on con- January 2018, it was announced that the ongoing INSPIRE siderations such as regional licensing of drug or local cost trial of the multikinase inhibitor rigosertib versus best considerations. Some studies of ‘real world’ experience supportive care in IPSS-R high and very high risk patients with azacitidine have not been able to replicate the sur- after HMA failure (NCT02562443) would increase its vival outcomes seen in the randomized trial, so the actual accrual goal because of promising early results. If the benefits of HMA may be less than has been commonly results are favorable, rigosertib would be the first drug presented . approved for second-line therapy in MDS. The optimal dose and schedule for each HMA is unclear; the best studied schedule of azacitidine is 75 mg/ Supportive care m per day for seven days every 28 days, whereas the most Support of patients with severe symptomatic anemia commonly used decitabine schedule for higher risk MDS with red cell transfusions and severe thrombocytopenia is 20 mg/m per day for five days every 28 days, which with platelet transfusions is a mainstay of therapy for 48–50 avoids weekend dosing . Lower doses have been stu- MDS. Fevers in patients with MDS must be taken ser- died in MDS but are not approved from a regulatory iously, and antimicrobial protocols for febrile neutropenia standpoint, and it is unclear if response rates mirror that followed carefully, as infection is the leading cause of 63,64 seen with the most widely studied regimens. Recently, a death in MDS . The benefit of prophylactic anti- very high response rate was reported with 10-day deci- microbials is controversial. tabine treatment in patients with higher risk MDS or For patients with thrombocytopenia who are refractory AML associated with a TP53 mutation . It is not clear, to platelet transfusions, the TPO agonists mentioned Blood Cancer Journal Steensma Blood Cancer Journal (2018) 8:47 Page 6 of 8 above may be of help, and the antifibrinolytic agents majority of patients diagnosed with MDS in 2018 will die epsilon-aminocaproic acid or tranexamic acid can reduce of complications of cytopenias . bleeding in some of those with recurrent mucosal 65 Acknowledgements hemorrhage . Androgens such as danazol or oxymetho- D.P.S. is supported by the Edward P. Evans Foundation. lone may improve hemoglobin or platelet count in a minority of patients, but liver tests must be monitored Conflict of interest Data safety monitoring committee: Janssen, Onconova, Takeda. Research during therapy and some older men may have difficulty support: H3 Biosciences, Celgene. Advisory board: Otsuka, Amphivena. with urinary retention due to an increase in prostate hyperplasia . Patients who receive repeated transfusions with red cells Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in may accumulate excess iron, which can cause tissue injury published maps and institutional affiliations. via generation of reactive free radicals. Iron chelation therapy with deferasirox or deferoxamine may be helpful Received: 29 January 2018 Revised: 9 February 2018 Accepted: 15 February in selected cases, but the effect of chelation on outcomes 2018 is controversial and such therapy is expensive (defer- asirox) or inconvenient (deferoxamine) . A randomized trial of deferasirox versus placebo in lower risk MDS References patients with red cell transfusion dependence and a serum 1. Tefferi, A. & Vardiman, J. W. Myelodysplastic syndromes. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, ferritin greater than 1000 ng/mL (TELESTO; 1872–1885 (2009). 2. Steensma, D. P. Myelodysplastic syndromes: diagnosis and treatment. Mayo NCT00940602) has completed accrual and results are Clin. Proc. 90,969–983 (2015). eagerly awaited. 3. Steensma, D. P. et al. Common troublesome symptoms and their impact on quality of life in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS): results of a large internet-based survey. Leuk. Res. 32,691–698 (2008). Future directions 4. Sekeres, M. A. & Cutler, C. How we treat higher-risk myelodysplastic syn- Dozens of novel agents are in development for MDS, as dromes. Blood 123,829–836 (2014). recently reviewed by Brunner and Steensma . These 5. Stone, R. M. How I treat patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood 113, 6296–6303 (2009). include luspatercept, rigosertib, immune checkpoint 6. Fenaux, P.&Ades,L.How we treatlower risk myelodysplasticsyndromes. inhibitors, and venetoclax, as mentioned above. In addi- Blood 121,4280–4286 (2013). tion, three new HMAs are in late phase clinical trials: 7. Sherman, A. E. et al. Geriatric assessment in older patients with acute myeloid guadecitabine (a parenterally administered dinucleotide leukemia: a retrospective study of associated treatment and outcomes. Leuk. Res. 37,998–1003 (2013). nucleoside analog formerly known as SGI-110), CC486 8. Sekeres, M. A. The epidemiology of myelodysplastic syndromes. Hematol. (an orally bioavailable form of azacitidine), and cedazurine Oncol. Clin. North. Am. 24,287–294 (2010). (formerly known as ASTX727, an orally administered 9. Boogaerts, M. A., Nelissen, V., Roelant, C. & Goossens, W. Blood neutrophil function in primary myelodysplastic syndromes. Br.J.Haematol. 55, 217–227 fixed-dose combination of decitabine and a cytidine dea- (1983). minase inhibitor). The oral HMAs may allow exploration 10. Greenberg, P. L. et al. Myelodysplastic Syndromes, version 2.2017, NCCN of extended doses and schedules compared to the avail- clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 15,60–87 (2017). able parenteral agents. Some patients who were failed by 11. Steensma, D. P. Hematopoietic growth factors in myelodysplastic syndromes. available HMAs responded to guadecitabine; a phase Semin. Oncol. 38,635–647 (2011). 3 study is ongoing in relapsed/refractory disease 12. DeZern, A. E. Nine years without a new FDA-approved therapy for MDS: how can we break through the impasse? Hematol. Am.Soc.Hematol.Educ.Pro- (NCT02907359) . Imetelstat, a telomerase inhibitor also gram. 2015,308–316 (2015). being studied in myeloproliferative neoplasms, is in a 13. Greenberg, P. L. et al. Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) for myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood 120,2454–2465 (2012). Phase 2 trial (NCT02598661) and transfusion indepen- 70 14. Lindsley, R. C. Uncoding the genetic heterogeneity of myelodysplastic syn- dence rates were ~30% in the first phase of this study .A drome. Hematol. Am. Soc. Hematol. Educ. Program. 2017,447–452 (2017). major priority is restoration of TP53 activity given the 15. Bejar, R. et al. Somatic mutations in MDS patients are associated with clinical features and predict prognosis independent of the IPSS-R: analysis of com- poor prognosis of patients with mutant or deleted TP53, bined datasets from the International Working Group for prognosis in MDS- and trials (NCT03072043) are ongoing with APR-246, a molecular committee. Blood 126, 907 (2015). TP53 modulator, and other agents in this subgroup. 16. Bejar, R. et al. Clinical effect of point mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 2496–2506 (2011). 17. Bejar, R. et al. Validation of a prognostic model and the impact of mutations in Conclusion patients with lower risk myelodysplastic syndromes. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, Treatment of patients with MDS requires appropriate 3376–3382 (2012). 18. Papaemmanuil, E. et al. Clinical and biological implications of driver mutations risk stratification and a tailored approach that depends on in myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood 122,3616–3627 (2013). quiz 99. the specific pattern and degree of cytopenias, sEPO level, 19. Hiwase, D. K. et al. Dynamic assessment of RBC-transfusion dependency presence of del(5q), marrow cellularity, and age and improves the prognostic value of therevised-IPSSin MDS patients. Am. J. comorbid conditions. New approaches are needed, as the Hematol. 92,508–514 (2017). Blood Cancer Journal Steensma Blood Cancer Journal (2018) 8:47 Page 7 of 8 20. Della Porta, M. G. et al. Validation of WHO classification-based Prognostic 42. Koreth, J. et al. A decision analysis of reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic Scoring System (WPSS) for myelodysplastic syndromes and comparison with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for older patiens with de-novo the revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R). A study of the myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS): early transplantation offers survival benefit International Working Group for Prognosis in Myelodysplasia (IWG-PM). Leu- in higher-risk MDS (Abstract #115). Blood 188, 115 (2011). kemia 29, 1502–1513 (2015). 43. Scott, B. L. et al. Myeloablative versus reduced-intensity hematopoietic cell 21. Wong, T. N. et al. Role of TP53 mutations in the origin and evolution of transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. J. therapy-related acute myeloid leukaemia. Nature 518, 552–555 (2015). Clin. Oncol. 35,1154–1161 (2017). 22. Padron, E. & Steensma, D. P. Cutting the cord from myelodysplastic syn- 44. Brierley, C. K. & Steensma, D. P. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation in mye- dromes: chronic myelomonocytic leukemia-specific biology and manage- lodysplastic syndromes: does pretransplant clonal burden matter? Curr. Opin. ment strategies. Curr. Opin. Hematol. 22, 163–170 (2015). Hematol. 23,167–174 (2016). 23. Patnaik, M. M. et al. Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia in younger patients: 45. Gerds,A.T.et al. Pretransplantation therapy withazacitidine vs induction molecular and cytogenetic predictors of survival and treatment outcome. chemotherapy and posttransplantation outcome in patients with MDS. Biol. Blood Cancer J. 5, e270 (2015). Blood. Marrow Transplant. 18,1211–1218 (2012). 24. Hellstrom-Lindberg, E. et al. A validated decision model for treating the 46. Fenaux, P. et al. Efficacy of azacitidine compared with that of conventional anaemia of myelodysplastic syndromes with erythropoietin+ granulocyte care regimens in the treatment of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a colony-stimulating factor: significant effects on quality of life. Br. J. Haematol. randomised, open-label, phase III study. Lancet Oncol. 10,223–232 (2009). 120, 1037–1046 (2003). 47. Ozbalak, M. et al. Azacitidine has limited activity in ‘real life’ patients with MDS 25. List, A. et al. Efficacy of lenalidomide in myelodysplastic syndromes. N. Engl. J. and AML: a single centre experience. Hematol. Oncol. 30,76–81 (2012). Med. 352,549–557 (2005). 48. Kantarjian, H. et al. Results of a randomized study of 3 schedules of low-dose 26. List, A. et al. Lenalidomide in the myelodysplastic syndrome with chromo- decitabine in higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome and chronic myelomo- some 5q deletion. N. Engl. J. Med. 355,1456–1465 (2006). nocytic leukemia. Blood 109,52–57 (2007). 27. Santini, V. et al. Randomized Phase III study of lenalidomide versus placebo in 49. Steensma, D. P. et al. Multicenter study of decitabine administered daily for RBC Transfusion-dependent patients with lower-risk Non-del(5q) myelodys- 5 days every 4 weeks to adults with myelodysplastic syndromes: the alter- plastic syndromes and ineligible for or refractory to erythropoiesis-stimulating native dosing for outpatient treatment (ADOPT) trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, agents. J. Clin. Oncol. 34,2988–2996 (2016). 3842–3848 (2009). 28. Fenaux, P. et al. A randomized phase 3 study of lenalidomide versus placebo 50. Lyons,R.M.etal. Hematologicresponse to three alternative dosing schedules in RBC transfusion-dependent patients with Low-/Intermediate-1-risk myelo- of azacitidine in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, dysplastic syndromes with del5q. Blood 118,3765–3776 (2011). 1850–1856 (2009). 29. Almeida, A. et al. Recent advances in the treatment of lower-risk non-del(5q) 51. Welch,J.S.etal. TP53 anddecitabineinacute myeloidleukemia and mye- myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Leuk. Res. 52,50–57 (2017). lodysplastic syndromes. N. Engl. J. Med. 375,2023–2036 (2016). 30. Brierley, C. K. & Steensma, D. P. Thrombopoiesis-stimulating agents and 52. Licht,J.D.DNA methylationinhibitors in cancer therapy: the immunity myelodysplastic syndromes. Br. J. Haematol. 169,309–323 (2015). dimension. Cell 162,938–939 (2015). 31. Mittelman, M. et al. Eltrombopag for advanced myelodysplastic syndromes or 53. Chiappinelli, K. B. et al. Inhibiting DNA Methylation causes an interferon acute myeloid leukaemia and severe thrombocytopenia (ASPIRE): a rando- response in cancer via dsRNA including endogenous retroviruses. Cell 162, mised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol. 5,e34–e43 (2018). 974–986 (2015). 32. Oliva, E. N. et al. Eltrombopag versus placebo for low-risk myelodysplastic 54. Montalban-Bravo, G., Garcia-Manero, G. &Jabbour,E.Therapeutic choicesafter syndromes with thrombocytopenia (EQoL-MDS): phase 1 results of a single- hypomethylating agent resistance for myelodysplastic syndromes. Curr. Opin. blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2 superiority trial. Lancet Haematol. 4, Hematol. 25,146–153 (2017). e127–e136 (2017). 55. Prebet, T. et al. Outcome of high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome after azaci- 33. Shastri,A.& Verma, A. K. Eltrombopag reduces clinically relevant thrombo- tidine treatment failure. J. Clin. Oncol. 29,3322–3327 (2011). cytopenic events in higher risk MDS and AML. Lancet Haematol. 5,e6–e7 56. Jabbour,E.etal. Outcomeofpatients with myelodysplastic syndrome after (2018). failure of decitabine therapy. Cancer 116,3830–3834 (2010). 34. Kantarjian, H. M. et al. Long-term follow-up for up to 5 years on the risk of 57. DiNardo, C. D. et al. Clinical experience with the BCL2-inhibitor venetoclax in leukaemic progression in thrombocytopenic patients with lower-risk myelo- combination therapy for relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukemia and dysplastic syndromes treated with romiplostim or placebo in a randomised related myeloid malignancies. Am.J.Hematol. 93,401–407 (2017). double-blind trial. Lancet Haematology 5, e117–e126 (2018). 58. Boddu, P. et al. The emerging role of immune checkpoint based approaches 35. Dickinson, M. et al. Abstract 37: SUPPORT, Eltrombopag in combination with in AML and MDS. Leuk. Lymphoma. 59, 790–802 (2018). azacitidine for first-line treatment of mds patients with thrombocytopenia: the 59. Sekeres, M. A. et al. Randomized phase II study of azacitidine alone or in randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III, support study. Leuk. Res. 55, combination with lenalidomide or with vorinostat in higher-risk myelodys- S23–S24 (2017). plastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia: North American 36. Sekeres, M. A. et al. Subcutaneous or intravenous administration of romi- Intergroup Study SWOG S1117. J. Clin. Oncol. 35,2745–2753 (2017). plostim in thrombocytopenic patients with lower risk myelodysplastic syn- 60. Garcia-Manero, G. et al. Phase 2, randomized, double-blind study of pracino- dromes. Cancer 117,992–1000 (2011). stat in combination with azacitidine in patients with untreated, higher-risk 37. Olnes,M.J.&Sloand,E.M.Targeting immune dysregulationinmyelodys- myelodysplastic syndromes. Cancer 123,994–1002 (2017). plastic syndromes. JAMA 305,814–819 (2011). 61. Cashen, A. et al. Phase II study of the histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat 38. Stahl M., et al. Abstract 422: The Use of Immunosuppressive Therapy (IST) in (PXD101) for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Ann. Hematol. patients with the Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS): Clinical outcomes and 91,33–38 (2012). their predictors in a large international patient cohort clinically relevant 62. Prebet, T. et al. Prolonged administration of azacitidine with or without enti- abstract. Blood 130, 2017. nostat for myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia with 39. Jabbour, E. et al. A randomized phase II study of low-dose decitabine versus myelodysplasia-related changes: results of the US Leukemia Intergroup trial low-dose azacitidine in lower risk MDS and MDS/MPN. Blood 130,1514–1522 E1905. J. Clin. Oncol. 32,1242–1248 (2014). (2017). 63. Dayyani, F. et al. Cause of death in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic 40. Platzbecker,U.etal. Luspatercept for the treatment of anaemia in patients syndrome. Cancer 116, 2174–2179 (2010). with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (PACE-MDS): a multicentre, open- 64. Steensma, D. P. Graphical representation of clinical outcomes for patients with label phase 2 dose-finding study with long-term extension study. Lancet myelodysplastic syndromes. Leuk. Lymphoma 57,17–20 (2016). Oncol. 18,1338–1347 (2017). 65. Salacz, M. E., Lankiewicz, M. W. & Weissman, D. E. Management of thrombo- 41. Cutler, C. S. et al. A decision analysis of allogeneic bone marrow transplan- cytopenia in bone marrow failure: a review. J. Palliat. Med. 10, 236–244 (2007). tation for the myelodysplastic syndromes: delayed transplantation for low-risk 66. Chan, G., DiVenuti, G. & Miller, K. Danazol for the treatment of thrombocyto- myelodysplasia is associated with improved outcome. Blood 104,579–585 penia in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome. Am.J.Hematol. 71, 166–171 (2004). (2002). Blood Cancer Journal Steensma Blood Cancer Journal (2018) 8:47 Page 8 of 8 67. Steensma, D. P. & Gattermann, N. When is iron overload deleterious, and 69. Issa, J. P. et al. Safety and tolerability of guadecitabine (SGI-110) in patients with when and how should iron chelation therapy be administered in myelo- myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia: a multicentre, ran- dysplastic syndromes? Best Pract. Res. Clin. Haematol. 26, 431–444 (2013). domised, dose-escalation phase 1 study. Lancet Oncol. 16,1099–1110 (2015). 68. Brunner, A. M., & Steensma, D. P. Recent advances in the cellular and mole- 70. Fenaux, P. et al. Efficacy and safety of imetelstat inRBC transfusion-dependent cular understanding of myelodysplastic syndromes and implications for new (TD) IPSS Low/Int-1 MDS Relapsed/Refractory to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating therapeutic approaches. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 16,56–66 (2018). Agents (ESA) (IMerge). Blood 130, 4256 (2017). Blood Cancer Journal

Journal

Blood Cancer JournalSpringer Journals

Published: May 24, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off