Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40084464›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of hematology2025

Topics of Interest in Women With Myeloproliferative Neoplasms.

Natasha Szuber, Paola Guglielmelli, Naseema Gangat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of hematology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Natasha SzuberDivision of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1499-6171
Paola GuglielmelliDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, CRIMM, Center Research and Innovation of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Naseema GangatDivision of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9104-6172

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

overviewSex and gender have emerged as central modifiers of disease biology, phenotype, and clinical outcomes in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). This review will uniquely highlight issues affecting women with MPN and articulate their relevant determinants. EPIDEMIOLOGY AND DIAGNOSIS: A higher overall prevalence of MPN has been established in women. The incidence of essential thrombocythemia (ET) predominates, while, conversely, polycythemia vera (PV) and myelofibrosis (MF) are seen in lower frequencies as compared to men. Diagnostic criteria are dictated by sex-driven physiological variances in hemoglobin and hematocrit levels in PV, mandating separate diagnostic thresholds, respectively: > 16.0 g/dL and > 48% in women vs. > 16.5 and > 49% in men. GENETIC FRAMEWORK AND PHENOTYPE: Women with MPN harbor fewer acquired somatic mutations and a lower frequency of high-risk mutations than their male counterparts; lower JAK2V617F driver variant allele frequency and attenuated allele burden kinetics have also been reported. Women with MPN are younger at diagnosis than men and, contingent on subtype, display more indolent disease features. Importantly, validated symptom burden assessments consistently disclose higher scores in women vs. men. THROMBOSIS AND OUTCOMES: Women with MPN have a unique thrombotic diathesis with respect to men, more frequently involving the splanchnic venous system in those ultimately diagnosed with PV. Outcomes data depict female sex as a variable associated with more favorable clinical trajectories, including lower rates of MF/leukemic transformation and secondary cancers, as well as improved overall survival rates vis-à-vis men. LIFE-CYCLE WINDOWS, PREGNANCY, AND POSTPARTUM: Potential challenges at each significant life stage will be addressed: puberty, preconception and fertility, and perimenopause; these include issues surrounding oral contraceptives and hormone use. Prospective studies suggest overall favorable maternal and fetal outcomes with pregnancy in women with MPN. Full details on risks and reported outcomes will be discussed, as well as a risk-adapted approach to management informed by obstetric and thrombosis history. Recommendations include aspirin 81 mg daily in all patients and cytoreduction with interferon-α in those with antecedent thrombosis, as well as in low-risk cases with higher-risk features (e.g., poorly controlled hematocrit and recurrent fetal loss). Antepartum anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended in cases with previous venous thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS: This review highlights female sex and gender as critical drivers of MPN incidence, presentation, and natural history. It further outlines the impact and management of MPN as related to unique female reproductive phases. A sex-informed lens will be required in order to recalibrate current prognostic tools, a requisite to refining patient counselling and clinical decision-making in line with precision medicine. Moreover, while several mechanisms underpinning sex-defined discrepancies have been defined, these mandate further prospective study. Finally, sex and gender-based differences must be weighted in clinical trials with systematized procedures to correct participation imbalances in favor of sex and gender equity.

Indexed as

Myeloproliferative DisordersFemaleHumansJanus Kinase 2MaleMutationPolycythemia VeraPregnancySex FactorsJAK2 protein, humanJanus Kinase 2essential thrombocythemiaMPNmyelofibrosispolycythemia verawomen

Identifiers

PMID40084464
PMCPMC12067178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.