4.4 Review

Proposals for Clinical Trials in Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia

期刊

CURRENT TREATMENT OPTIONS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 24, 期 8, 页码 1036-1051

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11864-023-01105-z

关键词

Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia; Clinical trials; Targeted therapy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) is a clonal hematologic malignancy with myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative features, affecting older individuals. Current treatments, such as hypomethylating agents and stem cell transplant, have limited efficacy. Recent research has identified key molecular pathways involved in disease progression, including inflammation. However, this knowledge has not yet translated into improved outcomes, suggesting the need for new approaches.
Opinion statementChronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) is a clonal hematologic malignancy of mostly older individuals that exhibits both myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative features. CMML presentation and outcome are variable, reflecting genetic and clinical heterogeneity. Hypomethylating agents are the mainstay of therapy but induce complete remissions in less than 20% of patients and do not prolong survival compared to hydroxyurea. Allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) is potentially curative, but few patients qualify due to advanced age and/or comorbidities. Work of the past several years has identified key molecular pathways that drive disease proliferation and transformation to acute leukemia, including JAK/STAT and MAPK signaling and epigenetic dysregulation. There is increasingly compelling evidence that inflammation is a major driver of CMML progression. Thus far however, this mechanistic knowledge has not yet been translated into improved outcomes, suggesting that fundamentally new approaches are required. In this review, we discuss the disease course, new classifications, and current treatment landscape of CMML. We review ongoing clinical studies and discuss options for rationally based future clinical trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据