Cytopenic myelofibrosis: prevalence, relevance, and treatment

References

• Marcellino BK, Verstovsek S, Mascarenhas J. The myelodepletive phenotype in myelofibrosis: clinical relevance and therapeutic implication. clinical lymphoma myeloma & leukemia. 2020 Jul;20(7):415–421. DOI:10.1016/j.clml.2020.01.008
   Google Scholar
• Guglielmelli P, Barosi G, Specchia G, et al. Identification of patients with poorer survival in primary myelofibrosis based on the burden of JAK2V617F mutated allele. Blood. 2009 Aug;114(8):1477–1483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Lasho TL, Huang J, et al. Low JAK2V617F allele burden in primary myelofibrosis, compared to either a higher allele burden or unmutated status, is associated with inferior overall and leukemia-free survival. Leukemia. 2008 Apr;22(4):756–761.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benevolo G, Elli EM, Guglielmelli P, et al. Thrombocytopenia in patients with myelofibrosis: management options in the era of JAK inhibitor therapy. Leuk Lymphoma. 2020 Jul;61(7):1535–1547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naymagon L, Mascarenhas J. Myelofibrosis-related anemia: current and emerging therapeutic strategies. Hemasphere. 2017 Dec;1(1):e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Lasho TL, Jimma T, et al. One thousand patients with primary myelofibrosis: the mayo clinic experience. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012 Jan;87(1):25–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernandez-Boluda JC, Correa JG, Alvarez-Larran A, et al. Clinical characteristics, prognosis and treatment of myelofibrosis patients with severe thrombocytopenia. Br J Haematol. 2018 May;181(3):397–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masarova L, Alhuraiji A, Bose P, et al. Significance of thrombocytopenia in patients with primary and postessential thrombocythemia/polycythemia vera myelofibrosis. Eur J Haematol. 2018 Mar;100(3):257–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masarova L, Mesa RA, Hernandez-Boluda JC, et al. Severe thrombocytopenia in myelofibrosis is more prevalent than previously reported. Leuk Res. 2020 Apr;91:106338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Hudgens S, Mesa R, et al. Use of the functional assessment of cancer therapy–anemia in persons with myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis and anemia. Clin Ther. 2014 Apr 1;36(4):560–566. DOI:10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.02.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa R, Miller CB, Thyne M, et al. Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) have a significant impact on patients’ overall health and productivity: the MPN Landmark survey. BMC Cancer. 2016 Feb 27;16(1):167. DOI:10.1186/s12885-016-2208-2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harrison CN, Koschmieder S, Foltz L, et al. The impact of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) on patient quality of life and productivity: results from the international MPN Landmark survey. Ann Hematol. 2017 Oct;96(10):1653–1665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa RA, Niblack J, Wadleigh M, et al. The burden of fatigue and quality of life in myeloproliferative disorders (MPDs) - an international internet-based survey of 1179 MPD patients. Cancer. 2007 Jan;109(1):68–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yellen SB, Cella DF, Webster K, et al. Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997 Feb;13(2):63–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa RA, Kantarjian H, Tefferi A, et al. Evaluating the serial use of the myelofibrosis symptom assessment form for measuring symptomatic improvement: performance in 87 myelofibrosis patients on a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor (INCB018424) clinical trial. Cancer. 2011 Nov 1;117(21):4869–4877. DOI:10.1002/cncr.26129
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scotch AH, Kosiorek H, Scherber R, et al. Symptom burden profile in myelofibrosis patients with thrombocytopenia: lessons and unmet needs. Leuk Res. 2017 Dec;63:34–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolosi M, Mudireddy M, Lasho TL, et al. Sex and degree of severity influence the prognostic impact of anemia in primary myelofibrosis: analysis based on 1109 consecutive patients. Leukemia. 2018 May;32(5):1254–1258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elena C, Passamonti F, Rumi E, et al. Red blood cell transfusion-dependency implies a poor survival in primary myelofibrosis irrespective of IPSS and DIPSS. Haematologica. 2011 Jan;96(1):167–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Mesa RA, Pardanani A, et al. Red blood cell transfusion need at diagnosis adversely affects survival in primary myelofibrosis-increased serum ferritin or transfusion load does not. Am J Hematol. 2009 May;84(5):265–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Siragusa S, Hussein K, et al. Transfusion-dependency at presentation and its acquisition in the first year of diagnosis are both equally detrimental for survival in primary myelofibrosis–prognostic relevance is independent of IPSS or karyotype. Am J Hematol. 2010 Jan;85(1):14–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tam CS, Kantarjian H, Cortes J, et al. Dynamic model for predicting death within 12 months in patients with primary or post-polycythemia vera/essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov;27(33):5587–5593.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervantes F, Dupriez B, Pereira A, et al. New prognostic scoring system for primary myelofibrosis based on a study of the international working group for myelofibrosis research and treatment. Blood. 2009 Mar;113(13):2895–2901.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passamonti F, Cervantes F, Vannucchi AM, et al. A dynamic prognostic model to predict survival in primary myelofibrosis: a study by the IWG-MRT (International Working Group for Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment). Blood. 2010 Mar;115(9):1703–1708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gangat N, Caramazza D, Vaidya R, et al. DIPSS plus: a refined dynamic international prognostic scoring system for primary myelofibrosis that incorporates prognostic information from karyotype, platelet count, and transfusion status. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Feb;29(4):392–397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guglielmelli P, Lasho TL, Rotunno G, et al. MIPSS70: mutation-enhanced international prognostic score system for transplantation-age patients with primary myelofibrosis. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb;36(4):310±.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Guglielmelli P, Lasho TL, et al. Mipss70+version 2.0: mutation and karyotype-enhanced international prognostic scoring system for primary myelofibrosis. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jun;36(17):1769±.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passamonti F, Giorgino T, Mora B, et al. A clinical-molecular prognostic model to predict survival in patients with post polycythemia vera and post essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis. Leukemia. 2017 Dec;31(12):2726–2731.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernandez-Boluda JC, Pereira A, Alvarez-Larran A, et al. Predicting survival after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in myelofibrosis: performance of the Myelofibrosis Transplant Scoring System (MTSS) and development of a new prognostic model. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2020 Dec;26(12):2237–2244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maffioli M, Mora B, Ball S, et al. A prognostic model to predict survival after 6 months of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis. Blood Adv. 2022 Mar 22;6(6):1855–1864. DOI:10.1182/bloodadvances.2021006889
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verstovsek S, Kantarjian H, Mesa RA, et al. Safety and Efficacy of INCB018424, a JAK1 and JAK2 Inhibitor, in Myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep;363(12):1117–1127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Gotlib J, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar;366(9):799–807.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verstovsek S, Gotlib J, Gupta V, et al. Management of cytopenias in patients with myelofibrosis treated with ruxolitinib and effect of dose modifications on efficacy outcomes. Onco Targets Ther. 2014;7:13–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talpaz M, Erickson-Viitanen S, Hou K, et al. Evaluation of an alternative ruxolitinib dosing regimen in patients with myelofibrosis: an open-label phase 2 study. J Hematol Oncol. 2018 Aug;11(1):11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cervantes F, Ross DM, Radinoff A, et al. Efficacy and safety of a novel dosing strategy for ruxolitinib in the treatment of patients with myelofibrosis and anemia: the REALISE phase 2 study. Leukemia. 2021 Dec;35(12):3455–3465.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talpaz M, Paquette R, Afrin L, et al. Interim analysis of safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis and low platelet counts. J Hematol Oncol. 2013 Oct; 6;6(1). DOI:10.1186/1756-8722-6-81
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Al‐ali HK, Griesshammer M, Foltz L, et al. Primary analysis of JUMP, a phase 3b, expanded‐access study evaluating the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis, including those with low platelet counts. Br J Haematol. 2020 Jun;189(5):888–903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vannucchi AM, Te Boekhorst PAW, Harrison CN, et al. EXPAND, a dose-finding study of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis and low platelet counts: 48-week follow-up analysis. Haematologica. 2019 Apr;104(5):947–954.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pardanani A, Harrison C, Cortes JE, et al. Safety and efficacy of fedratinib in patients with primary or secondary myelofibrosis a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2015 Aug;1(5):643–651.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison CN, Schaap N, Vannucchi AM, et al. Janus kinase-2 inhibitor fedratinib in patients with myelofibrosis previously treated with ruxolitinib (JAKARTA-2): a single-arm, open-label, non-randomised, phase 2, multicentre study. Lancet Haematol. 2017 Jul;4(7):E317–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison CN, Schaap N, Vannucchi AM, et al. Fedratinib in patients with myelofibrosis previously treated with ruxolitinib: an updated analysis of the JAKARTA2 study using stringent criteria for ruxolitinib failure. Am J Hematol. 2020 Jun;95(6):594–603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison C, Schaap N, Vannucchi A, et al. Fedratinib induces spleen responses and reduces symptom burden as first-line or salvage therapy in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated intermediate- or high-risk myelofibrosis (MF) and low platelet Counts. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Sep;19:S355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa RA, Vannucchi AM, Mead A, et al. Pacritinib versus best available therapy for the treatment of myelofibrosis irrespective of baseline cytopenias (PERSIST-1): an international, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2017 May;4(5):E225–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mascarenhas J, Hoffman R, Talpaz M, et al. Pacritinib vs best available therapy, including ruxolitinib, in patients with myelofibrosis a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018 May;4(5):652–659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerds AT, Savona MR, Scott BL, et al. Determining the recommended dose of pacritinib: results from the PAC203 dose-finding trial in advanced myelofibrosis. Blood Adv. 2020 Nov;4(22):5825–5835.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verstovsek S, Mesa R, Talpaz M, et al. Retrospective analysis of pacritinib in patients with myelofibrosis and severe thrombocytopenia. Haematologica. 2022 Jul 1;107(7):1599–1607. DOI:10.3324/haematol.2021.279415
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oh ST, Mesa R, Harrison C, et al. Pacritinib is a potent ACVR1 inhibitor with significant anemia benefit in patients with myelofibrosis. Blood. 2022;140(Supplement 1):1518–1521. DOI:10.1182/blood-2022-156936
   Google Scholar
• Chifotides HT, Bose P, Verstovsek S. Momelotinib: an emerging treatment for myelofibrosis patients with anemia. J Hematol Oncol. 2022 Jan 19;15(1):7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oh ST, Talpaz M, Gerds AT, et al. ACVR1/JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor momelotinib reverses transfusion dependency and suppresses hepcidin in myelofibrosis phase 2 trial. Blood Adv. 2020 Sep 22;4(18):4282–4291. DOI:10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002662
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta V, Mesa RA, Deininger MWN, et al. A phase 1/2, open-label study evaluating twice-daily administration of momelotinib in myelofibrosis. Haematologica. 2017 Jan;102(1):94–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pardanani A, Laborde RR, Lasho TL, et al. Safety and efficacy of CYT387, a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in myelofibrosis. Leukemia. 2013 Jun;27(6):1322–1327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Pardanani A, Begna KH, et al. Momelotinib for myelofibrosis: 12-year survival data and retrospective comparison to ruxolitinib. Am J Hematol. 2022 Sep 3;97(12). DOI:10.1002/ajh.26714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa RA, Kiladjian JJ, Catalano JV, et al. SIMPLIFY-1: a phase iii randomized trial of momelotinib versus ruxolitinib in janus kinase inhibitor-naive patients with myelofibrosis. J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec;35(34):3844±.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison CN, Vannucchi AM, Platzbecker U, et al. Momelotinib versus best available therapy in patients with myelofibrosis previously treated with ruxolitinib (SIMPLIFY 2): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2018 Feb;5(2):E73–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verstovsek S, Gerds AT, Vannucchi AM, et al. Momelotinib versus danazol in symptomatic patients with anaemia and myelofibrosis (MOMENTUM): results from an international, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2023 Jan 28;401(10373):269–280. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02036-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerds AT, Gotlib J, Ali H, et al. Myeloproliferative neoplasms, version 3.2022, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022 Sep;20(9):1033–1062.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sureau L, Orvain C, Ianotto JC, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of Janus kinase inhibitors in myelofibrosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Blood Cancer J. 2021 Jul 27;11(7):135. DOI:10.1038/s41408-021-00526-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa R, Harrison C, Oh ST, et al. Overall survival in the SIMPLIFY-1 and SIMPLIFY-2 phase 3 trials of momelotinib in patients with myelofibrosis. Leukemia. 2022 Sep;36(9):2261–2268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervantes F, Alvarez-Larran A, Hernandez-Boluda JC, et al. Darbepoetin-alpha for the anaemia of myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. Br J Haematol. 2006 Jul;134(2):184–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervantes F, Alvarez-Larran A, Hernandez-Boluda JC, et al. Erythropoietin treatment of the anaemia of myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia: results in 20 patients and review of the literature. Br J Haematol. 2004 Nov;127(4):399–403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang J, Tefferi A. Erythropoiesis stimulating agents have limited therapeutic activity in transfusion-dependent patients with primary myelofibrosis regardless of serum erythropoietin level. Eur J Haematol. 2009 Aug;83(2):154–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsiara SN, Chaidos A, Bourantas LK, et al. Recombinant human erythropoietin for the treatment of anaemia in patients with chronic idiopathic myelofibrosis. Acta Haematol. 2007;117(3):156–161. DOI:10.1159/000097463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernandez-Boluda JC, Correa JG, Garcia-Delgado R, et al. Predictive factors for anemia response to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in myelofibrosis. Eur J Haematol. 2017 Apr;98(4):407–414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMullin MF, Harrison CN, Niederwieser D, et al. The use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents with ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis in COMFORT-II: an open-label, phase 3 study assessing efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib versus best available therapy in the treatment of myelofibrosis. Exp Hematol Oncol. 2015;4(1):26. DOI:10.1186/s40164-015-0021-2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hernandez-Boluda JC, Martinez-Trillos A, Garcia-Gutierrez V, et al. Long-term results of prednisone treatment for the anemia of myelofibrosis. Leuk Lymphoma. 2016 Jan;57(1):120–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Cervantes F, Mesa R, et al. Revised response criteria for myelofibrosis: international Working Group-Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT) and European LeukemiaNet (ELN) consensus report. Blood. 2013 Aug;122(8):1395–1398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervantes F, Alvarez-Larran A, Domingo A, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of danazol as a treatment for the anaemia of myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia: long-term results in 30 patients. Br J Haematol. 2005 Jun;129(6):771–775.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervantes F, Isola IM, Alvarez-Larran A, et al. Danazol therapy for the anemia of myelofibrosis: assessment of efficacy with current criteria of response and long-term results. Ann Hematol. 2015 Nov;94(11):1791–1796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gowin K, Kosiorek H, Dueck A, et al. Multicenter phase 2 study of combination therapy with ruxolitinib and danazol in patients with myelofibrosis. Leuk Res. 2017 Sep;60:31–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervantes F. How I treat myelofibrosis. Blood. 2014 Oct;124(17):2635–2642.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa RA, Jamieson C, Bhatia R, et al. NCCN Guidelines (R) Insights Myeloproliferative Neoplasms, Version 2.2018 Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines. J National Compr Cancer Network. 2017 Oct;15(10):1193–1207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bose P, Verstovsek S. Management of myelofibrosis-related cytopenias. Curr Hematol Malignancy Rep. 2018 Jun;13(3):164–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Al-Ali HK, Barosi G, et al. A randomized study of pomalidomide vs placebo in persons with myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion dependence. Leukemia. 2017 Apr;31(4):896–902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stegelmann F, Koschmieder S, Isfort S, et al. Updated results from the German Mpnsg-0212 combination trial: ruxolitinib plus pomalidomide in myelofibrosis with anemia. Blood. 2019 Nov;134(Supplement_1):672.
   Google Scholar
• Mesa RA, Yao XP, Cripe LD, et al. Lenalidomide and prednisone for myelofibrosis: eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) phase 2 trial E4903. Blood. 2010 Nov;116(22):4436–4438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daver N, Cortes J, Newberry K, et al. Ruxolitinib in combination with lenalidomide as therapy for patients with myelofibrosis. Haematologica. 2015 Aug;100(8):1058–1063.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abgrall JF, Guibaud I, Bastie JN, et al. Thalidomide versus placebo in myeloid metaplasia with myelofibrosis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study. Haematologica. 2006 Aug;91(8):1027–1032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rampal RK, Verstovsek S, Devlin SM, et al. Safety and efficacy of combined ruxolitinib and thalidomide in patients with myelofibrosis: a phase II study. Blood. 2019 Nov;134(Supplement_1):4163.
   Google Scholar
• Feld J, Navada SC, Silverman LR. Myelo-deception: luspatercept & TGF-Beta ligand traps in myeloid diseases & anemia. Leuk Res. 2020 Oct;97:106430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bose P, Masarova L, Pemmaraju N, et al. Final results of a phase 2 study of sotatercept (ACE-011) for anemia of MPN-Associated myelofibrosis. Blood. 2021;138(Supplement 1):144. DOI:10.1182/blood-2021-150908
   Google Scholar
• Gerds AT, Vannucchi AM, Passamonti F, et al. Duration of response to luspatercept in patients (Pts) requiring red blood cell (RBC) transfusions with myelofibrosis (MF)-updated data from the phase 2 ACE-536-MF-001 study. Blood. 2020;136(Supplement 1):47–48. DOI:10.1182/blood-2020-137265
   Google Scholar
• Cervantes F. How I treat splenomegaly in myelofibrosis. Blood Cancer J. 2011 Oct;1(10):e37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malato A, Rossi E, Tiribelli M, et al. Splenectomy in myelofibrosis: indications, efficacy, and complications. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Sep;20(9):588–595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Mesa RA, Nagorney DM, et al. Splenectomy in myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia: a single-institution experience with 223 patients. Blood. 2000 Apr;95(7):2226–2233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa RA, Nagorney DS, Schwager S, et al. 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. 2006 Jul;107(2):361–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mudireddy M, Gangat N, Lasho TL, et al. Early thrombotic events and preemptive systemic anticoagulation following splenectomy for myelofibrosis. Am J Hematol. 2018 Sep;93(9):E235–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tefferi A, Mudireddy M, Gangat N, et al. Risk factors and a prognostic model for postsplenectomy survival in myelofibrosis. Am J Hematol. 2017 Nov;92(11):1187–1192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copher R, Kee A, Gerds A. Treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and cost in patients with myelofibrosis in the United States. Oncology. 2022 Mar 11;27(3):228–235.
   Google Scholar
• Kuykendall AT, Shah S, Talati C, et al. Between a rux and a hard place: evaluating salvage treatment and outcomes in myelofibrosis after ruxolitinib discontinuation. Ann Hematol. 2018 Mar;97(3):435–441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barosi G, Klersy C, Villani L, et al. JAK2(V617F) allele burden ≥ 50% is associated with response to ruxolitinib in persons with MPN-associated myelofibrosis and splenomegaly requiring therapy. Leukemia. 2016 Aug;30(8):1772–1775.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vachhani P, Verstovsek S, Bose P. Disease modification in myelofibrosis: an elusive goal? J Clin Oncol. 2022 Apr 10;40(11):1147–1154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar