What does this article mean about transplant outcomes vs Jak Inhibitors??

[Aneliv9]

Does it mean that outcomes from HSCT are the same as with Jak inhibitors? ???

hematologyadvisor.com/home/...

[hunter5582]

This article summary does not have the level of detail to fully interpret the results.

Compare to this finding. "The 100-day transplant related mortality was 18% for HLA identical sibling transplants, 35% for unrelated transplants, and 19% for transplants from alternative related donors. Corresponding 5 year overall survival rates were 37%, 30%, and 40% respectively. Disease-free survival rates were 33%, 27% and 22% respectively." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl....

What the article seems to be getting at is that with the advances made in JAK inhibitors, some patients are more likely to have a more positive outcome in terms of overall survival on the JAK inhibitors than with stem cell transplant. It has been known for a long time that not everyone will survive the SCT process. This is an intrinsic risk of the procedure. SCT is not the best choice for everyone with MF. It requires a very careful evaluation of each person's case of MF to determine whether the potential risk/benefit of SCT is better or worse than JAK inhibitors or other treatment choices.

[Scaredy_cat in reply to hunter5582]

A point when reading this article is the time it was written- 20 years ago-and the transplanted patients very often a long time before that. It only deals with PMF. Nowadays there are more transplant numbers available especially if you include post ET and post PV. The cause of many deaths was infection related and I've no idea to what extent treatment for this has improved. When making a judgement if I should have had a sct, this article isn't very encouraging especially on 5 Yr survival . Having said that most of the articles I read before my transplant were very confusing

[ainslie in reply to Scaredy_cat]

Having skimmed the article I can’t see where you get the idea it was written 20 years ago, was it not written in 2023. As far as I am aware Jak inhibitors we’re not used or possibly even invented 20 years ago so unlikely to be written 20 years ago, maybe I missed something ?

[Aneliv9 in reply to Scaredy_cat]

Article is new and talks about MF high risk patients. Where you on this category? Also what where the statistics about SCT that doctor gave you.?

[Scaredy_cat]

It wasn't your article I was referring to but the link from hunter, ie ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl... respectively but I see I made a mistake on date but it was still 10 years or so and the patients transplanted longer ago. I was given about 3 years if I didn't have the sct. Mine was post et mf. I can't remember what median survival chance I had if I had the sct but I do remember doing lots of mulling it all over. I asked the question of how much longer I'd be able to walk my friend's dogs if I didn't have it. That was probably 2 years. Thats what swung it for me.

[Aneliv9 in reply to Scaredy_cat]

What was your mutation during ET? Where you triple negative?

[Scaredy_cat]

Jac2 trisomy chromosome 9