4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Superior Efficacy of Midostaurin Over Cladribine in Advanced Systemic Mastocytosis: A Registry-Based Analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          PURPOSE

          On the basis of data from the German Registry on Disorders of Eosinophils and Mast Cells, we compared the efficacy of midostaurin and cladribine in patients with advanced systemic mastocytosis (AdvSM).

          PATIENTS AND METHODS

          Patients with AdvSM (n = 139) were treated with midostaurin only (n = 63, 45%), cladribine only (n = 23, 17%), or sequentially (midostaurin-cladribine, n = 30, 57%; cladribine-midostaurin, n = 23, 43%). Prognosis was assessed through the Mutation-Adjusted Risk Score (MARS). Besides the comparison of efficacy between midostaurin and cladribine on response (eg, organ dysfunction, bone marrow mast cell [MC] infiltration, and tryptase), overall survival (OS), and leukemia-free survival, we focused on the impact of treatment on involved non-MC lineages, for example, monocytes or eosinophils, and the KIT D816V expressed allele burden.

          RESULTS

          Midostaurin only was superior to cladribine only with effects from responses on MC and non-MC lineages conferring on a significantly improved OS (median 4.2 v 1.9 years, P = .033) and leukemia-free survival (2.7 v 1.3 years, P = .044) on the basis of a propensity score–weighted analysis of parameters included in MARS. Midostaurin compensated the inferior efficacy of cladribine in first- and second-line treatment. On midostaurin in any line, response of eosinophilia did not improve its baseline adverse prognostic impact, whereas response of monocytosis proved to be a positive on-treatment parameter. Multivariable analysis allowed to establish three risk categories (low/intermediate/high) through the combination of MARS and the reduction of the KIT D816V expressed allele burden of ≥ 25% at month 6 (median OS not reached v 3.0 years v 1.0 year; P < .001).

          CONCLUSION

          In this registry-based analysis, midostaurin revealed superior efficacy over cladribine in patients with AdvSM. In midostaurin-treated patients, the combination of baseline MARS and molecular response provided a compelling three-tier risk categorization (MARSv2.0) for OS.

          Related collections

          Most cited references1

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia.

          The World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumors of the hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues was last updated in 2008. Since then, there have been numerous advances in the identification of unique biomarkers associated with some myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias, largely derived from gene expression analysis and next-generation sequencing that can significantly improve the diagnostic criteria as well as the prognostic relevance of entities currently included in the WHO classification and that also suggest new entities that should be added. Therefore, there is a clear need for a revision to the current classification. The revisions to the categories of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia will be published in a monograph in 2016 and reflect a consensus of opinion of hematopathologists, hematologists, oncologists, and geneticists. The 2016 edition represents a revision of the prior classification rather than an entirely new classification and attempts to incorporate new clinical, prognostic, morphologic, immunophenotypic, and genetic data that have emerged since the last edition. The major changes in the classification and their rationale are presented here.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Contributors
            (View ORCID Profile)
            (View ORCID Profile)
            (View ORCID Profile)
            (View ORCID Profile)
            Journal
            Journal of Clinical Oncology
            JCO
            American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
            0732-183X
            1527-7755
            June 01 2022
            June 01 2022
            : 40
            : 16
            : 1783-1794
            Affiliations
            [1 ]Department of Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
            [2 ]Department of Pathology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
            [3 ]Department of Medical Statistics and Biomathematics, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
            [4 ]Wessex Regional Genetics Laboratory, Salisbury, United Kingdom
            [5 ]University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
            [6 ]Department of Pathology, Paracelsus Medical University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
            [7 ]Division of Hematology and Hemostaseology, Department of Internal Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
            [8 ]Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Hematology and Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
            [9 ]Hematology Division, Stanford University School of Medicine/Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA
            Article
            10.1200/JCO.21.01849
            35235417
            35a724cc-5143-4d31-9084-bb12fd97cf77
            © 2022
            History

            Comments

            Comment on this article