Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Several editions of the World Health Organization (WHO) classifications of lympho‐hemopoietic neoplasms in 2001, 2008, and 2016 served as the international standard for diagnosis. Since the 4th WHO edition, here referred as WHO‐HAEM4, significant clinico‐pathological, immunophenotypic, and molecular advances have been made in the field of myeloid neoplasms, which have contributed to refine diagnostic criteria, to upgrade entities previously defined as provisional and to identify new entities. This process has resulted in two recent classification proposals of myeloid neoplasms: the International Consensus Classification (ICC) and the 5th edition of the WHO classification (WHO‐HAEM5). In this paper, we review and compare the two classifications in terms of diagnostic criteria and entity definition, with a focus on adult myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The goal is to provide a tool to facilitate the work of pathologists, hematologists and researchers involved in the diagnosis and treatment of these hematological malignancies.</jats:p>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>The BCR::ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have improved the outcomes of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). After failing second‐generation TKI (2G‐TKI), the optimal third‐line therapy in chronic phase CML (CML‐CP) is not well established. We analyzed 354 patients with CML‐CP treated with a third‐line BCR::ABL1 TKI at our institution, and in the PACE and OPTIC trials, and evaluated the outcome after alternate 2G‐TKIs or ponatinib. We performed a propensity score matching analysis to compare outcomes and multivariate analysis to identify variables associated with survival. One hundred seventy‐three (49%) patients received 2G‐TKIs and 181 (51%) ponatinib. Patients in the ponatinib group had more cardiovascular risk factors (34% versus 19%) and higher disease burden (<jats:italic>BCR::ABL1</jats:italic> transcript levels &gt;1%, 165/175 [94%] versus 75/135 [55%]; <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; .001) compared with the 2G‐TKI group. Among the 173 evaluable patients treated with ponatinib, 89 (52%) achieved 2 + −log reduction of baseline transcripts (20% 2‐log reduction and 32% 3 + −log reduction). Among the 128 evaluable patients treated with 2G‐TKIs, 44 (34%) achieved 2 + −log reduction of baseline transcripts (13% 2‐log reduction and 21% 3 + −log reduction). With a median follow‐up of 46 months, the 3‐year progression‐free survival was 59% (60% before matching) with 2G‐TKI and 83% (81% before matching) with ponatinib (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; .001). The 3‐year survival was 83% (81% before matching) with 2G‐TKI and 87% (89% before matching) with ponatinib (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .03). By multivariate analysis, third‐line therapy with ponatinib was the only independent factor associated with better survival (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .003). In conclusion, ponatinib is an optimal treatment for patients with CML‐CP failing two prior TKIs.</jats:p>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a heterogeneous disease with varying clinical outcomes. Our understanding of its molecular makeup continues to improve risk stratification, and artificial‐intelligence and ctDNA‐based analyses have the potential to enhance risk assessment and disease monitoring. R‐CHOP and Pola‐R‐CHP are used in the frontline setting; chimeric antigen receptor therapy (CART) is now the new standard‐of‐care for most with primary refractory disease; both CART and autologous stem cell transplantation are utilized in the relapsed and refractory setting. In this review, we summarize the classification and management of DLBCL with an emphasis on recent advances in the field.</jats:p>