Search

Background: Blood cancer survivors are at increased risk for second primary malignancies, cardiovascular diseases, and infections. Little is known about preventive care in blood cancer survivors. Methods: Our questionnaire-based study included blood cancer patients diagnosed at the University Hospital of Essen before 2010, with a ≥ 3-year interval from the last intense treatment. One section of the retrospective study covered preventive care (cancer screening, cardiovascular screening, vaccination). Results: Preventive care was delivered by a general practitioner for 1100 of 1504 responding survivors (73.1%), by an oncologist for 125 (8.3%), by a general practitioner together with an oncologist for 156 (10.4%), and by other disciplines for 123 (8.2%). Cancer screening was more consistently performed by general practitioners than by oncologists. The converse was true for vaccination, with particularly high vaccination rates in allogeneic transplant recipients. Cardiovascular screening did not differ between care providers. Cancer and cardiovascular screening rates in survivors eligible for statutory prevention programs were higher than in the general population (skin cancer screening 71.1%; fecal occult blood testing 70.4%; colonoscopy 64.6%; clinical breast examination 92.1%; mammography 86.8%; cervical smear 86.0%; digital rectal examination 61.9%; blood pressure test 69.4%; urine glucose test 54.4%; blood lipid test 76.7%; information about overweight 71.0%). The Streptococcus pneumoniae vaccination rate was higher (37.0%) and the influenza vaccination rate was lower (57.0%) than in the general population. Conclusions: Utilization of preventive care is high among German blood cancer survivors. To ensure widespread delivery and avoid redundancy, communication between oncologists and preventive care providers is essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Follow-up care provides long-term support for cancer survivors. Little is known about follow-up care in hematologic malignancies. Methods: Our questionnaire-based study included blood cancer survivors diagnosed at the University Hospital of Essen before 2010, with a ≥ 3-year interval since the last intense treatment. The primary goal of the retrospective study was the identification and characterization of follow-up institutions. Results: Of 2386 survivors meeting the inclusion criteria, 1551 (65.0%) consented to participate, with a follow-up duration > 10 years in 731. The university hospital provided care for 1045 participants (67.4%), non-university oncologists for 231 (14.9%), and non-oncological internists or general practitioners for 203 (13.1%). Seventy-two participants (4.6%) abstained from follow-up care. The disease spectrum differed among follow-up institutions (p < 0.0001). While allogeneic transplant recipients clustered at the university hospital, survivors with monoclonal gammopathy, multiple myeloma, myeloproliferative disorders, or indolent lymphomas were often seen by non-university oncologists, and survivors with a history of aggressive lymphoma or acute leukemia by non-oncological internists or general practitioners. Follow-up intervals mirrored published recommendations. Follow-up visits were dominated by conversations, physical examination, and blood tests. Imaging was more often performed outside than inside the university hospital. Satisfaction with follow-up care was high, and quality of life was similar in all follow-up institutions. A need for improvement was reported in psychosocial support and information about late effects. Conclusions: The naturally evolved patterns identified in the study resemble published care models: Follow-up clinics for complex needs, specialist-led care for unstable disease states, and general practitioner-led care for stable conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Primary and post‐ET/PV myelofibrosis are myeloproliferative neoplasms harboring in most cases driving mutations in JAK2, CALR or MPL, and a variable number of additional mutations in other genes. Molecular analysis represents a powerful tool to guide prognosis and clinical management. Only about 10% of patients with myelofibrosis harbor alterations in MPL gene. No data are available about the transplantation outcome in the specific MPL‐mutated group. Patients: We collected the data of 18 myelofibrosis patients(primary: 14; post‐ET: 4) transplanted in 4 EBMT centers (Hamburg, Paris, Essen, and Hannover) between 2005 and 2016. Results: Before the transplant, we explored the molecular profile by NGS and reported the frequency of mutations occurring in a panel of genes including JAK2, MPL, CALR, U2AF1, SRSF2, SF3B1, ASXL1, IDH1, IDH2, CBL, DNMT3A, TET2, EZH2, TP53, IKZF1, NRAS, KRAS, FLT3, SH2B3, and RUNX1. The 1‐year transplant‐related mortality was 16.5%, 5‐years overall survival and 5‐y relapse‐free survival 83.5%. The only relapse occurred in a patient who harbored mutations in both ASXL1 and EZH2 genes. Conclusion: These retrospective data suggest that MPL‐mutated myelofibrosis patients have a favorable outcome after allogeneic transplantation with very low rate of disease relapse (5.5%) in comparison with the available historical controls regarding myelofibrosis in all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]