Tag Archive for: MIPSS

When Should Myelofibrosis Mutational Testing Be Repeated?

When should myelofibrosis mutational testing be repeated? Dr. Pemmaraju discusses the importance of retesting at key points and how mutations impact care and treatment plans. 

Dr. Naveen Pemmaraju is Director of the Blastic Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Neoplasm (BPDCN) Program and Professor in the Department of Leukemia at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Learn more about Dr. Pemmaraju.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Elevate Myelofibrosis

Related Resources:

What Myelofibrosis Treatment Types Are Available?

What Myelofibrosis Treatment Types Are Available?

How Are Prognostic Scoring Systems Used in Myelofibrosis Care?

How Are Prognostic Scoring Systems Used in Myelofibrosis Care?

Myelofibrosis Care | The Impact of Test Results

Myelofibrosis Care | The Impact of Test Results

Transcript:

Katherine Banwell:

“I understand that mutational testing should be done at diagnosis. Is there a point where there would be a need to repeat this test?”  

Dr. Naveen Pemmaraju:

Oh, that’s an awesome question. So, we were mentioning that earlier. I do believe and I advocate that all patients should have molecular testing, particularly now as it’s more available widely before it wasn’t. Again, we level set what we’re talking about. In myelofibrosis, three common driver mutations, JAK2, CALR, MPL makes up about 90 percent. 

Then in addition to that, there’s the triple-negative, and you usually find an additional mutation. Then on top of these big three, it’s common to have co-mutations, ASXL1, etc. What we found in this MIPSS score that we just mentioned ties into that. We found now that for the first time, we can incorporate these molecular findings to prognosticate for the patients. That’s why it’s important to check them. So, to this question by Joel, yes, if you have access and availability, not only checking it at baseline but later on at a provoking event.  

So, at the time of relapse, progression, going onto a clinical trial, just to name three of several. I think it’s a good idea to recheck the molecular status. The problem and barriers are what you would expect, cost, expense, access, availability, justification, etc., etc. So, it’s not a mandatory part of the field, especially in the standard of care, non-research aspect. However, if we can get to the point where we can do that, it would be nice and helpful because these mutations change, they’re dynamic.   

You can have negative for mutation at baseline, positive, and even vice versa, depending on therapies. Are you going to go for a transplant? Are you going to go to a clinical trial? Are you changing therapy? It would be nice to know. 

How Are Prognostic Scoring Systems Used in Myelofibrosis Care?

How are scoring systems such as DIPSS used in myelofibrosis care? Dr. Pemmaraju explains how these tools assess myelofibrosis prognosis and guide treatment decisions. 

Dr. Naveen Pemmaraju is Director of the Blastic Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Neoplasm (BPDCN) Program and Professor in the Department of Leukemia at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Learn more about Dr. Pemmaraju.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Elevate Myelofibrosis

Related Resources:

Myelofibrosis Care | Impact of Diet & Lifestyle Modifications

Myelofibrosis Care | Impact of Diet & Lifestyle Modifications

Myelofibrosis Symptoms and Side Effects | Why Speaking Up Is Vital

Myelofibrosis Symptoms and Side Effects | Why Speaking Up Is Vital

Myelofibrosis Care | The Impact of Test Results

Myelofibrosis Care | The Impact of Test Results

Transcript:

Katherine Banwell:

“Can you explain the dynamic international prognostic scoring system or DIPSS?” Thank goodness there’s an acronym for that.  

Dr. Naveen Pemmaraju:

Yeah, no, it’s a great question, scoring systems, right?  

Katherine Banwell:

Yeah, and Cliff wants to know how he can ask his doctor about it.  

Dr. Naveen Pemmaraju:

Right, so the easiest way to talk about it, the good news is everything we’ve been talking about is incorporated in the scoring system. So, said in another way, we’ve been talking about it subjectively, the scoring systems try to make the subject objective. So, quick history, these started in 2009 with the IPSS, International Prognostic Scoring System. The concept there were a thousand patients in Europe and basically trying to observe the natural history of the progression of myelofibrosis. This was just before, just as the JAK inhibitor era was starting. What we found is that the four groups nicely separate.  

So, the lowest of the low-risk group potentially can be measured in decades for overall survival. Intermediate one, intermediate two, and high risk, again, all separated by overall survival and AML leukemia transformation risk. Now, that’s evolved over time as the questioner is asking for more sophisticated scoring systems. So, that’s all you need to know. So, DIPSS Plus just means Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System.  

Then there’s DIPSS plus, and can you believe it? There’s even the MIPSS now, the Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System. All right. So, at least there’s a rhyme and reason there. I think each iteration is telling you that we are dynamically understanding more about the disease. Two, the IPSS, the original one, was meant to be only at diagnosis, and the DIPSS by definition, dynamic scoring, is any time during the course of the disease, that’s interesting. Then three, they’re incorporating new factors each time.   

So, from the time of the IPSS to the DIPSS and now the MIPSS, you’re incorporating all these factors that we couldn’t before. Cytogenetics, molecular findings, anemia, transfusion, burn, thrombocytopenia, etc. So, that’s basically it. You can ask your doctor. I mean, basically, in the course of what we do in the non-clinical trial standard of care, even if somebody doesn’t hand stop and calculate these risk scores, we’re talking about the same thing, right? The subjective or the objective matchup.  

However, of interest to the patients, there are calculators that are available, you know, obviously rather than doing it in isolation in your house. Yes, it is better, I agree to do it with your doctor, with your provider team, and see what it means for you. The goal of these is twofold. In clinical trials to help stratify patients so you can understand who’s high risk versus lower. However, in the standard of care, sure it may help with transplant decisions, referrals for clinical trials, etc.