Blood Advances

Monitoring detected blood cancers with less marrow scarring

The median share of JAK2 gene copies carrying a mutation was 13.0% at diagnosis in monitored cases versus 41.3% in referral-diagnosed cases.

Paper by Lea Loeffler, Isabella Diana Davidsen, Vibe Skov, +11 more authorsHans Carl Hasselbalch Sr. · Zealand University Hospital · University of Copenhagen
Bone marrow with widely spaced cells sits beside a smaller marrow fragment tangled with dense scar fibers, with loose blood cells nearby.
Studied:
Cohort study of 61 JAK2 mutation carriers, against referral-diagnosed blood cancer cases
What changed:
No marrow scarring was found in 80% of surveillance-detected cases versus 15% of referral-diagnosed cases
The catch:
Referral-diagnosed cases may have had faster-progressing disease than surveillance-detected cases
In the record:
The 3rd paper on active surveillance with results in people; 17 on record in all.

Editor of record: Boris Djordjevic · AgingResearch.News

Follow @agingbrief

Sixty-one participants in Denmark carrying a mutation in the JAK2 gene underwent active surveillance for myeloproliferative neoplasms, a group of blood cancers, in a longitudinal observational study. They had none of these cancers at baseline in 2010–2013. Researchers compared 20 cancers diagnosed during surveillance with 20 diagnosed after clinical referral between 2010 and 2018. Median follow-up to cancer diagnosis was 7.4 years.

Surveillance-detected cancers had a lower share of gene copies carrying the mutation and less bone marrow fibrosis, or scarring. No marrow scarring was found in 80% of surveillance-detected cases versus 15% of referral-diagnosed cases. The other 41 monitored participants did not develop these cancers or show an increase in the mutation’s share of gene copies.

Why it matters

For aging research on mutation-carrying blood cell populations, the study addresses whether surveillance can identify related blood cancers earlier in their development.

Caveats

The comparison involved cancers detected through different routes. People diagnosed after clinical referral may have had faster-progressing disease than those diagnosed through surveillance.

Where the evidence stands

Active surveillance

Humans: a single group. Cells, worms or flies and mice: nothing yet.
  • 2 independent labs in 2 countries

Comments

Be the first to comment.