Cytoreductive treatment in real life: a chart review analysis on 1440 patients with polycythemia vera

PURPOSE: Patients with polycythemia vera (PV) show an elevated incidence of thromboembolic complications and decreased survival when compared to age-matched healthy individuals. Hypercellularity as indicated by elevated hematocrit, pathophysiological changes induced by the JAK2 driver mutation and cardiovascular risk factors contribute to the increased incidence of thromboembolic events. Higher age and a history of thromboembolic events define a high-risk population of PV patients. Depending on the individual risk profile, phlebotomy or pharmacologic cytoreduction is recommended in combination with low-dose acetylsalicylic acid. Stringent cytoreduction is required for effective risk reduction. However, in recent reports, the rate of thromboembolic complications in PV patients under cytoreductive therapy appears still elevated compared to healthy individuals. This study reports on a chart review to assess for cytoreductive therapy of 1440 PV patients in real life. METHODS: Forty-two eligible hematologists/oncologists in private practice treating patients with MPN were recruited to participate in a paper–pencil-based survey conducted between January 2019 and March 2020 in Germany. Physicians were asked to report primary documented data obtained from patient charts. Descriptive analyses were conducted to assess for patient characteristics, treatment modalities, risk factors and thromboembolic complications. RESULTS: Data were collected from the patient charts of 1440 individuals diagnosed with PV. The patient population was older than those reported in multicenter trials with a median age of 72.2 years at the time of reporting and 63.5 years at diagnosis. Age was the main factor accounting for high-risk status with 84.7% of patients being above the age of 60 followed by thromboembolic complications reported in 21.3% of patients. The use of pharmacologic cytoreduction was highly variable between participating centers with an average of 60.7% and a range of 10.1–100%. Hydroxyurea was the most frequently used drug followed by ruxolitinib, while interferons were reported for a minority of patients. For 35.4% of patients a persistent need for phlebotomy in addition to cytoreductive treatment was reported. Although presence of high-risk criteria and insufficient disease control were reported as main triggers to initiate pharmacologic cytoreduction, 28.1% had elevated hematocrit values (> 45%) and 38.6% showed persistence of elevated leukocyte count (> 10(9/l)) while on cytoreductive treatment. In contrast, physician-reported symptom burden was lower than published in clinical trials and patient-reported outcomes. The rate of patients experiencing thromboembolic complications was 32.2% at any time and 14.3% after diagnosis with most patients receiving acetylsalicylic acid and 10.8% remaining on oral anticoagulants or heparin. CONCLUSIONS: Cytoreductive treatment of high-risk PV in real life is highly variable regarding indication for cytoreduction and definition of therapy resistance. This study highlights the need for (i) improved risk stratification for thromboembolic events, (ii) consequent indication of pharmacologic cytoreduction in high-risk PV and (iii) attention to signs of therapy resistance that can trigger an earlier and stringent switch to second line agents.