Leukemia & Lymphoma最新文献

More than 80% of newly diagnosed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients present with asymptomatic, early-stage CLL. Of these, only 30-50% progress to advanced stage with reduced survival, while the rest may never require treatment. According to the 2018 International Workshop on CLL (iwCLL) guidelines, patients who do not meet the criteria for treatment initiation should only be treated within the context of clinical trials, as data demonstrating an overall survival benefit in early-stage CLL are still awaited. Risk stratification through continually advancing prognostic models can assist in identifying high-risk patients for early, risk-adapted treatment within clinical trials. Currently, new targeted therapies with high efficacy and lower toxicity are available in early intervention trials. This review (1) explores the development of prognostic models for identifying high-risk patients, (2) examines the design of early intervention trial, (3) summarizes the outcomes of early intervention trials, particularly in the context of targeted therapies, and (4) highlights ongoing clinical trials involving targeted treatments.

SETBP1 mutations (m) have been previously reported in myeloid neoplasms and are associated with poor prognostic co-mutations and cytogenetic abnormalities. We retrospectively analyzed the charts of 113 patients diagnosed with myeloid neoplasms with SETBP1m. The most common diagnosis was MDS (31%). Cytogenetics were abnormal in 51 cases (46.4%), with monosomy 7 being the most common (41.1%). The most frequent co-mutations were ASXL1 (71.7%), SRSF2 (46.9%), TET2 (20.4%). Higher SETBP1m VAF was associated with proliferative features (p < 0.05). Most SETBP1m (96.5%) were in one of three hotspots (Asp868, Gly870, Ile871), with Asp868m being most frequent (51.3%). Patients with Ile871m had higher number of co-mutations (median= 4) compared to Asp868m and Gly870m (p = 0.07). On multivariate analysis, age ≥ 70 years (p = 0.004) and higher peripheral blood blasts (p = 0.02) had worse OS. Patients with Ile871m had lower OS when compared with Asp868m and Gly870m (5.5 months vs. 17.4 and 17 months, respectively, p = 0.1).

Managing acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and its critical complications requires understanding the complex interplay between disease biology, treatment strategies, and patient characteristics. Complications like sepsis, acute respiratory failure (ARF), hyperleukocytosis, coagulopathy, tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) and central nervous system (CNS) involvement present unique challenges needing precise evaluation and tailored interventions. Venetoclax-induced TLS and differentiation syndrome (DS) from IDH1/IDH2 or menin inhibitors highlight the need for ongoing research and innovative approaches. As the microbiological landscape evolves and new therapeutic agents emerge, adapting strategies to mitigate harmful pharmacological interactions is crucial. Advances in understanding the genetic profiles of patients with hyperleukocytosis contribute to better-targeted therapeutic strategies. Effective AML management relies on collaborative efforts from hematologists, specialized services, and intensive care units (ICUs). This review analyzes recent data on critical AML complications, identifies areas for further investigation, and proposes ways to advance clinical research and enhance patient care strategies.

Oral azacitidine (Oral-AZA) is recommended as maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (ND AML) achieving remission with intensive chemotherapy (IC) but not transplant candidates; venetoclax plus injectable azacitidine (VEN-AZA) is recommended for patients ineligible for IC. Some patients may be considered candidates for either regimen. This retrospective study used Flatiron Health's database to compare treatment patterns and clinical outcomes with Oral-AZA maintenance after IC (IC🡪Oral-AZA) versus frontline VEN-AZA. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed at 4 different time points, including from Oral-AZA initiation (IC🡪Oral-AZA cohort) or from remission (VEN-AZA cohort) in the Core Analysis. Median RFS was 14.9 and 8.1 months for IC🡪Oral-AZA and VEN-AZA propensity score-matched cohorts, in the Core Analysis (n = 32 in each; p = 0.027); median OS was 18.7 and 15.2 months (p = 0.034). In patients with AML, IC🡪Oral-AZA significantly improved RFS and OS compared with VEN-AZA.