ArticleBlood cancer journal2018
Mutation landscape in patients with myelofibrosis receiving ruxolitinib or hydroxyurea.
Article in Blood cancer journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determining the recommended dose of pacritinib: results from the PAC203 dose-finding trial in advanced myelofibrosis.Blood advances · 2020Trial
- Unmasking Additional Mutations: A Single Institution Study in Myeloproliferative Neoplasms.Cancers · 2026Article
- Pathogenesis and management of high molecular risk myeloproliferative neoplasms.Haematologica · 2025Review
- Relationship between additional mutations at diagnosis and treatment response in patients with essential thrombocythemia.Blood advances · 2025Article
- Validation and molecular integration of the RR6 model to predict survival after 6 months of therapy with ruxolitinib.Haematologica · 2024Article
- Article
- Association of Myelofibrosis Phenotypes with Clinical Manifestations, Molecular Profiles, and Treatments.Cancers · 2023Review
- [Clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of patients with Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm accelerated/blast phase].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2023Article
- Assessment of the efficacy and tolerability of ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis patients in a real-life setting: An Italian MYNERVA Project.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Biological drivers of clinical phenotype in myelofibrosis.Leukemia · 2023Review
- Recent advances in therapies for primary myelofibrosis.Faculty reviews · 2023Review
- Clonogenic assays improve determination of variant allele frequency of driver mutations in myeloproliferative neoplasms.Annals of hematology · 2022Article
- [Analysis of the effect of gene mutations on the efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis based on second-generation sequencing technology].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2022Article
- JAK2V617F variant allele frequency >50% identifies patients with polycythemia vera at high risk for venous thrombosis.Blood cancer journal · 2021Article
- Philadelphia-Negative MPN: A Molecular Journey, from Hematopoietic Stem Cell to Clinical Features.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
- Integration of Molecular Information in Risk Assessment of Patients with Myeloproliferative Neoplasms.Cells · 2021Review
- Co-mutation pattern, clonal hierarchy, and clone size concur to determine disease phenotype of SRSF2Leukemia · 2021Article
- The Genetic Basis of Primary Myelofibrosis and Its Clinical Relevance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- RAS/CBL mutations predict resistance to JAK inhibitors in myelofibrosis and are associated with poor prognostic features.Blood advances · 2020Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Refractoriness to ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) was associated with clonal evolution; however, whether genetic instability is promoted by ruxolitinib remains unsettled. We evaluated the mutation landscape in 71 MF patients receiving ruxolitinib (n = 46) and hydroxyurea (n = 25) and correlated with response. A spleen volume response (SVR) was obtained in 57% and 12%, respectively. Highly heterogenous patterns of mutation acquisition/loss and/or changes of variant allele frequency (VAF) were observed in the 2 patient groups without remarkable differences. In patients receiving ruxolitinib, driver mutation type and high-molecular risk profile (HMR) at baseline did not impact on response rate, while HMR and sole ASXL1 mutations predicted for SVR loss at 3 years. In patients with SVR, a decrease of ≥ 20% of JAK2V617F VAF predicted for SVR duration. VAF increase of non-driver mutations and clonal progression at follow-up correlated with SVR loss and treatment discontinuation, and clonal progression also predicted for shorter survival. These data indicate that (i) ruxolitinib does not appreciably promote clonal evolution compared with hydroxyurea, (ii) VAF increase of pre-existing and/or (ii) acquisition of new mutations while on treatment correlated with higher rate of discontinuation and/or death, and (iv) reduction of JAK2V617F VAF associated with SVR duration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.