Advertisement

Wiener klinisches Magazin

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 268–271 | Cite as

Zweitlinientherapie bei BCR-ABL-negativen myeloproliferativen Neoplasien

Therapieentscheidungen außerhalb von klinischen Studien
  • Sonja HeiblEmail author
Onkologie
  • 7 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Ziel der Therapie BCR-ABL-negativer myeloproliferativer Neoplasien (MPN) ist einerseits die Verhinderung des Auftretens thromboembolischer Komplikationen und andererseits die Transformation in eine Myelofibrose oder akute Leukämie. Nach Versagen der Erstlinientherapie ist die vorhandene Datenlage über den Einsatz medikamentöser Therapiestrategien sehr spärlich, sodass in diesem Artikel versucht wird, die Möglichkeiten der Zweitlinientherapie basierend auf vorhanden Daten und Erfahrung herauszuarbeiten.

Schlüsselwörter

BCR-ABL-negative myeloproliferative Neoplasien MPN Zweitlinientherapie Second-line-Behandlung 

Second Line Treatment of BCR-ABL Negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

Treatment Decisions Outside of Clinical Trials

Abstract

Treatment of BCR-ABL-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) is aimed to prevent the occurrence of thromboembolic complications and transformation to myelofibrosis or acute leukemia. Data for second-line treatment is mostly lacking. After failure of the first-line therapy, the available data on the use of drug therapy strategies is very sparse, so that in this article we try to work out the possibilities of the second-line therapy based on existing data and experience.

Keywords

BCR-ABL-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms MPN Second-line therapy Second-line treatment 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

S. Heibl gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Arber DA et al (2016) The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood 127:2391–2405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tefferi A et al (2013) Survival and prognosis among 1545 patients with contemporary polycythemia vera: an international study. Leukemia 27:1874–1881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barbui T et al (2011) Philadelphia-negative classical myeloproliferative neoplasms: critical concepts and management recommendations from European LeukemiaNet. J Clin Oncol 29:761–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Landolfi R et al (2004) Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Aspirin in Polycythemia Vera. N Engl J Med 350:114–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marchioli R et al (2013) Cardiovascular events and intensity of treatment of polycythemia vera. N Engl J Med 368:22–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barbui T et al (2018) Philadelphia chromosome-negative classical myeloproliferative neoplasms: revised management recommendations from European LeukemiaNet. Leukemia 32:1057–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burgstaller S et al (2018) Austrian recommendations for the management of polycythemia vera. Wien Klin Wochenschr 130:535–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kiladjian JJ et al (2008) Pegylated interferon-alfa-2a induces complete hematologic and molecular responses with low toxicity in polycythemia vera. Blood 112:3065–3072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quintas-Cardama A et al (2009) Pegylated interferon alfa-2a yields high rates of hematologic and molecular response in patients with advanced essential thrombocythemia and polycythemia vera. J Clin Oncol 27:5418–5424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mascarenhas J et al (2018) Results of the Myeloproliferative Neoplasms—Research Consortium (MPN-RC) 112 randomized trial of pegylated interferon alfa-2a (PEG) versus Hydroxyurea (HU) therapy for the treatment of high risk polycythemia vera (PV) and high risk essential thrombocythemia (ET). Blood 132(Suppl 1):577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gisslinger H et al (2018) Evidence of superior efficacy and disease modification after three years of prospective randomized controlled treatment of polycythemia vera patients with ropeginterferon alfa-2b vs. HU/BAT. Blood 132(Suppl 1):579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yacoub A et al (2019) Pegylated interferon alfa-2a for polycythemia vera or essential thrombocythemia resistant or intolerant to hydroxyurea. Blood.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2019000428 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vanucchi AM et al (2015) Ruxolitinib versus standard therapy for the treatment of polycythemia vera. N Engl J Med 372:426–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Passamonti F et al (2017) Ruxolitinib for the treatment of inadequately controlled polycythemia vera without splenomegaly (RESPONSE-2): a randomized, open-label, phase 3b study. Lancet Oncol 18:88–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mesa R et al (2017) The efficacy and safety of continued hydroxycarbamide therapy versus switching to ruxolitinib in patients with polycythemia vera: a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, symptom study. Br J Haematol 176:76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alvarez-Larrán A et al (2007) Essential thrombocythemia in young individuals: frequency and risk factors for vascular events and evolution to myelofibrosis in 126 patients. Leukemia 21:1218–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cortelazzo S et al (1995) Hydroxyurea for patients with essential thrombocythemia and a high risk of thrombosis. New Engl J Med 332:1132–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harrison C et al (2005) Hydroxyurea compared with anagrelide in high-risk essential thrombocythemia. N Engl J Med 353:33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gisslinger H et al (2013) Anagrelide compared with hydroxyurea in WHO-classified essential thrombocythemia: the ANAHYDRET study, a randomized controlled trial. Blood 121:1720–1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sliwa T et al (2017) Austrian recommendations for the management of primary myelofibrosis, post-polycythemia vera myelofibrosis and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis: an expert statement. Wien Klin Wochenschr 129:293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harrsion C et al (2012) JAK inhibition with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy for myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med 366:787–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Verstovsek S et al (2012) Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med 366:799–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mesa RA et al (2006) Palliative goals, patient selection, and perioperative platelet management: outcomes and lessons from 3 decades of splenectomy for myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia at the Mayo Clinic. Cancer 107:361–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Abteilung für Innere Medizin IV, Hämatologie und OnkologieKlinikum Wels-GrieskirchenWelsÖsterreich

Personalised recommendations