The Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Channel on VJHemOnc is an independent medical education platform, supported with funding from Takeda (Gold) and Kartos Therapeutics, Inc. (Bronze). Supporters have no influence on the production of content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given.
EHA 2025 | A Delphi consensus study to define disease progression and disease modification in polycythemia vera
In this interview, Prithviraj Bose, MD, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, comments on a Delphi consensus conducted to define disease progression and disease modification in polycythemia vera (PV). Dr Bose explains that a group of seven US-based experts drafted 41 questions across six domains to establish treatment goals and disease modification criteria, which were then sent to a broader audience of hematologist-oncologists, and a consensus was reached. This interview took place at the 30th Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Milan, Italy.
These works are owned by Magdalen Medical Publishing (MMP) and are protected by copyright laws and treaties around the world. All rights are reserved.
Transcript
This was an interesting project we conducted fairly recently. Seven of us got together, so seven US-based experts in PV, myself, John Mascarenhas, Raajit Rampal and others were on this. So the seven of us first drafted some important questions in the field. So we came up with 41 questions across six domains. And just to give you a general idea of what we were trying to achieve here, you know, we were just looking at, OK, what should the treatment goals be? What is disease modification? What is a suboptimal response? So some of these we were aiming to get some sort of consensus on how we should approach PV going forward now that we are in the era of disease-modifying agents...
This was an interesting project we conducted fairly recently. Seven of us got together, so seven US-based experts in PV, myself, John Mascarenhas, Raajit Rampal and others were on this. So the seven of us first drafted some important questions in the field. So we came up with 41 questions across six domains. And just to give you a general idea of what we were trying to achieve here, you know, we were just looking at, OK, what should the treatment goals be? What is disease modification? What is a suboptimal response? So some of these we were aiming to get some sort of consensus on how we should approach PV going forward now that we are in the era of disease-modifying agents.
So we, like I said, we drafted 41 questions across, you know, six domains. And then these were sent out to a broader audience of hematologist-oncologists or just hematologists or just oncologists. And they were all US-based. Sixty-one responded. And what is nice is we obtained consensus, which means 75 percent agreement or higher on 95 percent of the questions. So only five percent failed to meet consensus. And so that’s what this abstract is about. It’s available here as a publication-only abstract at EHA and has been sent in for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
This transcript is AI-generated. While we strive for accuracy, please verify this copy with the video.
Read more...
Disclosures
Research support: Incyte, BMS, CTI (Sobi), Morphosys, Ajax, Geron, Janssen, Ionis, Disc, Sumitomo, Karyopharm, Kartos, Telios, Cogent, Blueprint; Honoraria/consulting fees from Incyte, BMS, CTI (Sobi), GSK, Abbvie, Morphosys (Novartis), Pharma Essentia, Disc, Ionis, Karyopharm, Sumitomo, Geron, Novartis, Cogent, Blueprint, Ono, Raythera, Morphic, Jubilant, Keros.
