No bone marrow was done at diagnosis at the other centre. Whether fibrosis was present or not is unknown. This is important. Once upon a time, the development of fibrosis on therapy was considered disease acceleration, but one would not know this if there was no baseline for comparison.
Similarly, cytogenetics at baseline were not done. Again, clonal progression on therapy can be considered the first stage of acceleration and warrants thinking about more aggressive management such as allograft. Given a young healthy male with a matched sib, allografting is on the table. PCR for BCR::ABL1 however remained undetectable in his case. It is also a strong recommendation that in cases of refractory cytopenias with initial TKI therapy, a bone marrow be done to rule out fibrosis as the cause.
My first manoeuvre was a bone marrow aspirate and biopsy. The first was difficult. No dividing cells for cytogenetics and morphology thin. Biopsy however, showed significant fibrosis. Molecular testing was negative for JAK2 but positive for CALR leading to a diagnosis of co-existent CML and MF. The co-existence of BCR:ABL1 and either JAK2 or CALR has been reported, so this was not a new finding.
I started the patient on full-dose ruxolitinib in addition to the nilotinib and monitored him clinically for more than 6 months. Other than mild fatigue, no side effects and no bloodwork adverse events. Spleen size did not budge as is sometimes noted with huge spleens and significant fibrosis. The patient was becoming more uncomfortable with the abdominal fullness.
After appropriate counselling, the patient received the usual vaccinations and underwent elective splenectomy by laparotomy due to the spleen size. When the surgery had healed, he underwent a myeloablative stem cell allograft with fludarabine/busulfan/TBI conditioning and cyclosporine/post-transplant cyclophosphamide GVH prophylaxis. He engrafted promptly, within 15 days, and was off immunosuppression by 3 months. No acute or chronic GVHD. Nilotinib and ruxolitinib were discontinued one week before conditioning. He remains well and all disease-free 5 years later, with BCR:ABL1 monitoring.
So we have a number of teaching points with this case which is not so unique.
1. Bone marrow aspirate, biopsy and cytogenetics at baseline are still important despite what has become a "routine" in many places.
2. When things do not appear to be improving in unison - pcr negativity and spleen size in this case - rethink the problem and investigate.
3. Co-existence of CML and other MPDs can occur and in a case like this, should be investigated. As an aside, molecular testing can be misleading. BCR::ABL1 should be considered with any new MPD, as CML can present as thrombocytosis with mild leucocytosis or even fibrosis.
4. It is possible to use two TKIs together safely when trying to treat different diseases. However, in the absence of a reasonable response, move on to something else.
5. Yes, allografting still exists and can be done more safely than in the past. With donor pools expanded to include matched related, unrelated, haplo and rare cord, healthy patient age now even into the 8th decade, reduced intensity conditioning which may be as good as myeloablative for CML, better GVH prophylaxis and supportive care, more people could be eligible and delaying SCT, may take the option off the table.