In hairy cell leukemia (HCL) treatment, challenges that currently exist involve making the diagnosis as well as predicting the time of relapse, explained Gary J. Schiller, MD. 

Moreover, research is ongoing to develop therapeutics that could be associated with less potential for immunosuppression. Moxetumomab pasudotox, for example, is a novel agent with an entirely different mechanism of action and BRAF inhibitors are also gaining traction in the space. 

, Schiller, director, Bone Marrow/Stem Cell TransplantationProfessor, Hematology-Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, discussed the challenges with treating patients with HCL and some emerging therapies that could impact clinical practice.

: Hairy cell leukemia (HCL) is such a rare form of leukemia. Can you discuss some challenges regarding its assessment and diagnosis?

 I think the biggest challenge with HCL is making the diagnosis. We have the technology, we have the capability of making the diagnosis, and most patients who have HCL have a neoplastic clone identifiable in the bone marrow and/or blood. But the problem is awareness. I have discovered that a number of patients have a history of unexplained leukopenia for a period of time, usually neutropenia, but [no clinician made a] designated request for evaluation by pathology specifically for HCL. You may have a bone matter biopsy procured and submitted, but if the pathologist isn’t informed that you are thinking of HCL, you will often not give the necessary clues for making the diagnosis. You really need to advise your hematopathologist, in some form or another, that you are looking for distinct clonal diseases, such as HCL or large granular lymphocytosis, that might not make themselves manifest on a routine Wright’s stain or hematoxylin—eosin stain of aspirate and biopsy, respectively.

What are the core principles of treating HCL, both initially and in follow-up? 

Our initial therapy, once we’ve made a diagnosis and the patient either has an abnormal blood test or is symptomatic from HCL, is the purine nucleoside drug cladribine. We have evolved now toward the 5-day, brief intravenous [IV] infusion daily, rather than the 7-day continuous infusion, just for ease; [a patient] treated with the 5 brief daily IV doses does not require sustained venous access or for us to arrange getting a pump. We give prophylaxis for zoster, fungal infections, and pneumocystis for up to a year after that 5-day infusion. For patients who have a feasibility issue, meaning they can’t come daily, we might use pentostatin. Perhaps if somebody were profoundly neutropenic, pentostatin might be preferred because its onset of activity is slower in terms of response but also in the induction and exacerbation of neutropenia.

Can you talk about the prevalence of relapsing or refractory HCL and the challenges of treatment?

The prevalence of relapsing disease depends on the duration of follow-up. If you follow patients for many, many years, I would say that a good one-third to one-half of them will experience overt disease relapse. Relapse can occur anywhere between 2 years and 20 years after initial therapy, and its timing is highly heterogenous. It is not so easy to predict when someone will relapse. Investigators report that residual disease predicts relapse, but I’m not sure I believe that since, even with residual disease, the time to relapse can be very long. I don’t look for residual disease at 3 or 6 months after the purine nucleoside drugs. Instead, I am looking for recovery and normalization of peripheral blood counts; that’s an endpoint to me, and that endpoint can be sustained for a long time with or without evidence of residual bone marrow disease. Treatment is sufficiently immunosuppressive, so a physician needs a pretty good reason for retreating a vulnerable patient. The presence of morphologic disease in the marrow at 3 or 6 months with complete normalization of the blood count is not a satisfactory reason to retreat, but I am sure different experts have different opinions. Without a large series of well-controlled studies, it is difficult to know the meaning and the impact of residual disease. I have had enough patients who have had [residual] disease at 3 or 6 months after cladribine and had a normalization of blood counts for many, many years.

In what situations would you consider a combination regimen for treatment of HCL? 

I would consider combinations in the setting of early relapse or disease refractory to purine nucleoside drugs, not in initial management. I am uncertain as to what the advantage might be. Some rare patients might have leukocytosis; for them, you might consider a double indication regimen. But the setting in which I have seen extreme leukocytosis has been in patients with advanced disease, usually those with early relapse, or those with a longstanding history of HCL with multiple relapses after many treatments. Their disease can appear as a relapse with white counts in the 30,000 to 50,000 range; for them, you might consider combination purine nucleoside therapy and rituximab. The immunosuppressive effects are the downside of this combination regimen.

Can you talk about the role of moxetumomab pasudotox and how it differs from the other therapies available for relapsed or refractory HCL?

Moxetumomab pasudotox is a fundamentally different therapy with a completely different mechanism of action. It is a monoclonal antibody with a reactive chemotherapeutic payload. Its potential efficacy in patients whose disease is resistant to purine nucleosides or rituximab is entirely based on that theoretical mechanism of action. It produces responses in patients whose disease has progressed with these initial agents. I cannot really tell you how this novel agent would compare with a BRAF inhibitor; I don’t think we have any data directly addressing the comparison. Moxetumomab has, on the other hand, some off-target toxicity that you need to think about, however uncommon. For instance, there is some potential for hemolytic uremic syndrome, which has been associated with treatment with moxetumomab pasudotox.

As we look to the next several years, how do you expect the treatment spectrum to evolve? What would you like to see emphasized in the guideline or future research?

It might be nice to find a way to deliver a drug that would be associated with less potential for immunosuppression. There would be room in the upfront management to consider a trial of either a BRAF inhibitor or moxetumomab pasudotox.

How important is communication and awareness when it comes to making an HCL diagnosis?

To make a diagnosis of HCL, you need to [first] consider the [possibility of a] diagnosis of HCL. You need to interact with the hematopathologist and make it clear that in your evaluation of neutropenia, when you do a bone marrow biopsy, you specifically ask the hematopathologist to look for HCL as well as large granular lymphocytosis and hypocellular myelodysplasia. Now, in the era of the electronic health record and electronic ordering, I think the greatest risk is to be unable to communicate and to miss the diagnosis. Once the diagnosis is made, we have a lot of treatment options, but we only have one class of agents approved for the initial management, and in the relapse setting we have drugs that are effective. The disease is chronic; people live a long time with it. Later in the disease, leukocytosis can be a problem, although not typically early in the diagnosis. These patients do need to be chronically followed for the rest of their lives.&ensp;n

Articles

Gary J. Schiller, MD, discusses the challenges with treating patients with hairy cell leukemia and some emerging therapies that could impact clinical practice. 

Practical Perspectives on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hairy Cell Leukemia

Hairy cell leukemia (HCL) is a rare mature B-cell malignancy that accounts for 2% of all leukemias, translating to approximately 1000 new cases reported each year in the United States.

 In HCL, the bone marrow, spleen, and liver are infiltrated by mature B cells, characterized by ample cytoplasm with thin surface projections (giving rise to the descriptive name “hairy” cell leukemia)

 and a specific surface immunophenotype (coexpression of CD103, CD25, CD123, and CD11c).

Although HCL is considered incurable in most patients,

 effective treatments are available. For the past 3 decades, purine nucleoside analogues (PNAs), including pentostatin and cladribine, have been the mainstay for first-line treatment for patients with HCL.

 with retrospective studies showing that PNAs induce complete remission (CR) rates of 70% to 90%, with treatment-free intervals of more than 10 years.

 In an analysis of 121 patients treated with PNA, interferon α, or splenectomy, progressively lower CR rates were observed with each successive line of treatment, ranging from a 77% CR rate with first-line treatment to 50% with fifth-line treatments.

Despite broadly high CR rates with the use of PNA-based therapy, relapse does occur in a significant proportion of patients.

 For instance, in a long-term follow-up study in which cladribine was used as first-line treatment, the relapse rate in initial responders was 37%, with a median time to relapse of 42 months.

 Another long-term follow-up study of 233 patients with HCL, treated initially with pentostatin or cladribine, reported that 42% and 38% of patients who received pentostatin or cladribine as first-line treatments relapsed, respectively.

 Overall, roughly half of the patients in this study relapsed within 16 years and required additional therapy.

 It has been found that the time to relapse from CR is also shorter in younger patients.

 Additionally, PNAs are associated with severe infection risk

 and with increased risk of cumulative toxicity with each additional round of treatment.

Retreatment with a PNA, especially with an analogue that was not used in first-line treatment, is an option for subsequent lines of treatment for relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease.

 However, progressively shorter durations of remission with additional lines of treatment and myelosuppression risk with PNAs have generated an unmet clinical need in patients with R/R disease.

 Recent efforts have focused on targeted or immunotherapy agents for treating HCL, including agents for relapsed HCL and HCL refractory to treatment with PNAs.

 The remainder of this article reviews advances in the treatment of R/R HCL.

Although the specific clinicopathological features of HCL, including the characteristic morphology of the leukemic cells, were first described more than 50 years ago, genetic profiles of HCL cells and the distinguished genetic and molecular alterations have been outlined more recently.

 Most HCL cases (80%-90%) are characterized by somatic hypermutation in the immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV) gene, with the frequency of unmutated IGHV being much lower in classic HCL compared with variant HCL (HCLv).

, a kinase-encoding proto-oncogene, have been considered disease-defining genetic lesions in HCL, being clonally and somatically present at diagnosis in almost all patients across the entire clinical spectrum of the disease.

 A single somatic, clonal point mutation in 

 was first identified via whole-exome analysis of an index patient with HCL.

 This mutation results in the production of the

 leading to downstream phosphorylation and activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK)/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) signaling pathway.

 Sequencing studies have confirmed the prevalence of the BRAF-V600E mutation in HCL to be nearly 100%.

The incidence of BRAF-V600E, along with the availability of BRAF-V600E—directed kinase inhibitors, provide a rationale for therapeutic targeting of this omnipresent mutation in HCL. Inhibitors that target the BRAF/MEK/ERK pathway have shown promise for patients with BRAF-V600E–mutated cancers.

 Following the drugs’ regulatory approval, the clinical utilization of the BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib has greatly improved outcomes in patients with 

 Inhibition of the BRAF/MEK/ERK pathway with vemurafenib, dabrafenib, or trametinib was shown to induce molecular and morphological changes in HCL cells, ultimately inducing apoptosis by disrupting the MEK/ERK pathway.

Vemurafenib is currently the only BRAF inhibitor recommended for treatment of R/R HCL in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 2019 guidelines.

 NCCN recommends vemurafenib for progressive disease following second-line therapy. Vemurafenib is a highly specific BRAF-V600E kinase inhibitor that has demonstrated low toxicity and a rapid clinical response in clinical trials of advanced melanoma patients harboring the 

 In addition to the rationale for clinical utilization of 

 inhibitors in HCL outlined above, the lack of significant myelotoxicity with vemurafenib is proposed to be an additional advantage in HCL management, especially in salvage treatment for HCL patients who have relapsed with pancytopenia and low marrow reserve due to previous chemotherapies.

 In the context of R/R HCL, vemurafenib offers this distinct advantage over PNAs, which are known to cause profound myelosuppression with enduring immunosuppression, with febrile neutropenia occurring in 30% to 50% of patients who undergo PNA induction therapy.

Two phase II, multicenter clinical trials in Italy and the United States have evaluated the efficacy and safety of vemurafenib in patients with R/R HCL.

 In both studies, all patients had received prior PNA therapy (median, 3 lines); the overall response rate (ORR) in the Italian and US studies was 96% and 100%, respectively.

 The median relapse-free survival (RFS) in the Italian cohort was 9 months, with a significantly longer median RFS in patients who achieved CR than in those with partial response (PR).

 In the US trial, the progression-free survival (PFS) was 73% and the overall survival rate was 91% at 1 year.

 Updated analyses of the data from the completed US trial showed that 50% of the patients relapsed with a median follow-up of 24 months, and retreatment with vemurafenib yielded an ORR of 85%, with 1 patient developing acquired resistance to vemurafenib, associated with a 

Dabrafenib is selective type 1 BRAF inhibitor with clinical activity and class-defined toxicity similar to that of vemurafenib.

 Vemurafenib and dabrafenib are also less potent toward wild-type RAF proteins.

 Although both inhibitors have demonstrated comparable clinical efficacy, they have shown different effects in RAF kinase inhibition, toxicity profile, and prospective evidence for activity in non—

 In a recent case report, a patient with malignant melanoma and HCL, both harboring the 

-V600E mutation, was successfully treated with dabrafenib.

 Thus, dabrafenib, which was approved by the FDA for the treatment of 

-V600E—positive non–small cell lung cancer in combination with trametinib,

-V600E—positive HCL as well. However, it is not currently included in the NCCN treatment guidelines.

-resistant disease is an emerging concern in HCL.

 Currently, the mechanisms of vemurafenib resistance in HCL are not completely understood.

 Mutations reported in vemurafenib-resistant HCL include alteration in 

 Based on the role of MEK in the BRAF pathway and vemurafenib resistance, the use of MEK inhibitors has been proposed as a therapeutic strategy in patients who have aberrantly reactivated ERK signaling.

 An international multicenter trial of dabrafenib and trametinib is currently underway in diseases with 

Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) is a member of the Tec kinase family and plays a central role in B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling; BTK is also involved in chemokine receptor and adhesion molecule signaling in normal and malignant B cells.

 The visualization of the role BTK plays in the BCR signaling pathway can be seen in 

 Moreover, C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 and BCR-interacting proteins, such as BTK, have been shown to be essential for the survival and expansion of HCL cells.

 BTK is uniformly expressed in HCL cells, and the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib has been shown to inhibit HCL cell proliferation and cell cycle progression.

 BTK inhibition, as a downstream kinase in the BCR pathway, leads to resistance of BCR-mediated activation of signaling events that promote B cell growth, proliferation, and survival, serving as a therapeutic strategy in HCL.

Ibrutinib is approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma, and it has been evaluated in patients with HCL.

 Early data from an ongoing multicenter trial of ibrutinib monotherapy in relapsed HCL and HCLv were promising; the ORR in the 28 patients who were evaluable for response in the 2 dosing cohorts (420 mg/d and 840 mg/d ibrutinib) was 46%, including 4 CRs and 9 PRs.

 Relapsed patients in this study had received a median of 4 prior therapies (range, 1-11), including PNAs, rituximab, and vemurafenib.

 The estimated 24-month PFS was 79%; median PFS had not been reached at the time of analysis.

 Notably, this study included 10 patients with relapsed HCLv. In a recent case report, a patient with multiply relapsed HCLv treated with ibrutinib derived clinical benefit from this regimen.

NCCN lists ibrutinib along with vemurafenib as appropriate for progressive disease following

Rituximab is a human/murine chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody indicated for various CD20-expressing B-cell malignancies, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and HCL.

 Rituximab is thought to eliminate CD20-positive cells using various mechanisms, including by promoting apoptosis of CD20-positive cells and by mediating complement-dependent cytotoxicity and/or antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity.

 In addition to evaluating combinations of rituximab with PNAs, recent trials have sought to combine rituximab with other agents, including vemurafenib and bendamustine, for the treatment of HCL.

 The 2019 NCCN guidelines recommend rituximab—PNA–vemurafenib combinations for patients with R/R HCL.

Bendamustine is approved for use in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and relapsed B-cell NHL

; it has both alkylating and antimetabolite properties.

 Preclinical studies provide support for a synergistic effect of rituximab and bendamustine using lymphoma cell lines and ex vivo cells from patients with CLL and leukemic B-cell lymphomas.

 In a case report of a patient with multiply relapsed HCL and transfusion-dependent disease, bendamustine monotherapy induced a temporary PR, suggesting the potential utility of bendamustine in this setting.

 A subsequent randomized trial (NCT01059786) in patients with multiply R/R HCL sought to compare the utility of concurrent administration of rituximab/bendamustine with rituximab/pentostatin.

 CRs were observed in 4 of the 6 patients who received bendamustine at 90 mg/m

 versus 3 of the 6 patients who received bendamustine at 70 mg/m

 The rates of minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative CR (67% in the 90 mg group vs 33% in the 70 mg group) as well as the duration of  CR (111 vs 223 days) indicated that the higher dose of bendamustine provided more favorable outcomes.

 Based on these data, another trial is currently randomizing patients either to rituximab/pentostatin or to rituximab with a higher dose of bendamustine.

Moxetumomab Pasudox: A Novel Treatment for Relapsed/Refractory HCL

The HCL immunophenotypic profile is characterized by the expression of CD11c, CD25, and CD103 markers, in addition to the B-cell antigens CD20 and CD22.

 For HCL and other B-cell malignancies, CD22, a single-spanning membrane glycoprotein of 140&#8197;kDa, is expressed at a higher density than CD25.

 CD22 plays an important role in establishing signaling thresholds for B-cell activity through its role as an inhibitory coreceptor of the BCR.

 CD22-mediated BCR signaling modulation, along with expression of CD22 on malignant HCL and HCLv cells, form the rationale for targeting CD22 in HCL and other B-cell neoplasms.

Several therapeutic approaches, including CD22-directed small molecules, monoclonal antibodies, antibody—drug conjugates, and recombinant immunotoxins, have been or are being developed to induce B-cell depletion in B-cell neoplasms. Among these CD22-targeting strategies, recombinant bacterial immunotoxin–antibody conjugates have been shown to be highly cytotoxic to HCL cells.

 The recombinant immunotoxin—antibody conjugates have 2 main components: a plant or bacterial protein toxin, which is a highly potent catalytic agent that exhibits cytotoxicity with a single molecule reaching the cytosol that has been engineered such that it lacks the toxin domain binding to normal animal cells; and a recombinant toxin, which is fused to a recombinant variable fragment (Fv) of a monoclonal antibody.

In 2018, the FDA approved moxetumomab pasudotox (MPT), a CD22-directed bacterial toxin—based immunoconjugate, for the treatment of adult patients with R/R HCL who have received 2 or more prior lines of therapy, including treatment with a PNA.

 The approval of MPT was granted under FDA priority review and fast track designation.

 The availability of a targeted agent to the HCL paradigm provides a long-needed nonchemotherapy option for treating patients whose disease has progressed or become refractory to first-line therapies.

 In 2019, the role of MPT within the HCL therapeutic spectrum became more established, with its addition to the NCCN guidelines as a category 2a recommendation.

MPT is composed of an Fv of a recombinant murine anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody that is fused to PE38, a 38-kDa fragment of 

 exotoxin A, thus inhibiting protein synthesis.

 MPT has an affinity for CD22 that is 14-fold improved over that of BL22, due to a lower off-rate; this is mediated by engineering random mutations within localized “hot spots” the CDR3 domain of V

Initial phase I data indicated that MPT induced a 46% CR rate in patients with R/R HCL with 2 or more prior therapies and abnormal blood counts.

 A subsequent analysis of long-term follow-up data showed that 71% of patients in the extension cohort receiving 50 μg/kg MPT achieved a CR, and the ORR was 91%.

In the combined cohort, 64% of patients achieved CR and the ORR was 88%.

 The median duration of the CR in the 21 patients who achieved it was 42.4 months, and of the 20 patients who achieved CR who were evaluated for MRD, 55% were MRD negative. Ten patients persisted in CR at the study’s end.

The approval of MPT for R/R HCL was based on data from a pivotal, single-arm, open-label phase III study (NCT01829711) that included 80 patients (79% male; median age, 60 years) across 32 centers in 14 countries with R/R histologically confirmed HCL with 2 or more prior systemic therapies, including at least 1 PNA.

 The MPT-induced durable CR rate was 30%, with a CR rate of 41.3% and an ORR of 75%. Additionally, 80% achieved hematologic remission.

 Among those who achieved CR, 85% achieved MRD negativity by immunohistochemistry.

 The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were peripheral edema (38.8%), nausea (35%), fatigue (33.8%), and headache (32.5%).

 A total of 50 patients completed a full 6 cycles of treatment (62.5%), with patients most commonly discontinuing due to achieving CR with MRD negativity (15%).

HUS occurred in 7% of patients in this combined database; 44% and 11% of these were grade 3 and 4, respectively.

 MPT should not be used in patients with a history of severe thrombotic microangiopathy or HUS. Prophylactic IV fluids should also be administered before and after MPT infusions. Monitoring blood chemistry and completing blood counts prior to each dose and on day 8 of each treatment cycle is essential. As with CLS, events of HUS are potentially life-threatening if treatment is delayed.

 Patients should also be monitored for renal function, serum electrolytes, and infusion-related reactions.

The recommended dosage of MPT is .04 mg/kg IV on days 1, 3, and 5 of each 28-day cycle (

 Infusions last about 30 minutes and patients should be well hydrated for 1 day following treatment. MPT is supplied as a sterile, preservative-free, white to off-white lyophilized cake or powder in a single-dose vial for reconstitution and dilution prior to infusion.

After decades of quiescence, the therapeutic landscape of HCL is undergoing rapid evolution. The addition of the FDA-approved immunotoxin MPT in 2018, coupled with other targeted agents currently being investigated in monotherapy and combination regimens, including BRAF and BTK inhibitors, signal a new era in HCL management. These new agents collectively represent a positive development in the HCL spectrum, particularly for patients who are ineligible to receive PNAs or those with disease that is refractory to or relapsed following treatment with PNAs. Moreover, the inclusion of these novel agents and combinations in the updated 2019 NCCN guidelines for HCL management brings promise for this rare malignancy, as new discoveries shed more light on the genetic and molecular underpinnings of HCL.

Troussard X, Cornet E. Hairy cell leukemia 2018: update on diagnosis, risk&#8208;stratification, and treatment. 

. 2017;92(12):1382-1390. doi: 10.1002/ajh.24936.

Else M, Dearden CE, Matutes E, et al. Long-term follow-up of 233 patients with hairy cell leukaemia, treated initially with pentostatin or cladribine, at a median of 16 years from diagnosis. 

. 2009;145(6):733-740. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07668.x.

Schrek R, Donnelly WJ. “Hairy” cells in blood in lymphoreticular neoplastic disease and “flagellated” cells of normal lymph nodes. 

Shao H, Calvo KR, Grönborg M, et al. Distinguishing hairy cell leukemia variant from hairy cell leukemia: development and validation of diagnostic criteria. 

. 2013;37(4):401-409. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2012.11.021.

Sarvaria A, Topp Z, Saven A. Current therapy and new directions in the treatment of hairy cell leukemia: a review. 

. 2016;2(1):123-129. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2014134.

Kreitman RJ, Arons E. Update on hairy cell leukemia. 

Saven A, Burian C, Koziol JA, Piro LD. Long-term follow-up of patients with hairy cell leukemia after cladribine treatment. 

Zinzani PL, Pellegrini C, Stefoni V, et al. Hairy cell leukemia: evaluation of the long-term outcome in 121 patients. 

. 2010;116(20):4788-4792. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25243.

Goodman GR, Burian C, Koziol JA, Saven A. Extended follow-up of patients with hairy cell leukemia after treatment with cladribine. 

. 2003;21(5):891-896. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.05.093.

Wierda WG, Byrd JC, Abramson JS, et al. Hairy cell leukemia, version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. 

 2017;15(11):1414-1427. doi: 6004/jnccn.2017.0165.

Getta BM, Woo KM, Devlin S, et al. Treatment outcomes and secondary cancer incidence in young patients with hairy cell leukaemia. 

. 2016;175(3):402-409. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14207.

Rosenberg JD, Burian C, Waalen J, Saven A. Clinical characteristics and long-term outcome of young hairy cell leukemia patients treated with cladribine: a single-institution series. 

. 2014;123(2):177-183. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-06-508754.

Thompson PA, Ravandi F. How I manage patients with hairy cell leukaemia. 

 2017;177(4):543-556. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14524.

Grever MR, Abdel-Wahab O, Andritsos LA, et al. Consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with classic hairy cell leukemia. 

. 2017;129(5):553-560. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-01-689422.

Kreitman RJ, Dearden C, Zinzani PL, et al. Moxetumomab pasudotox in relapsed/refractory hairy cell leukemia. 

. 2018;32(8):1768-1777. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0210-1.

Tiacci E, Pettirossi V, Schiavoni G, Falini B. Genomics of hairy cell leukemia. 

. 2017;35(9):1002-1010. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2071.1556.

Arons E, Roth L, Sapolsky J, et al. Evidence of canonical somatic hypermutation in hairy cell leukemia. 

. 2011;117(18):4844-4851. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-11-316737.

Tiacci E, Trifonov V, Schiavoni G, et al. BRAF mutations in hairy-cell leukemia. 

. 2011;364(24):2305-2315. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1014209.

Huang T, Karsy M, Zhuge J, et al. B-Raf and the inhibitors: from bench to bedside.

. 2013;6:30. doi: 10.1186/1756-8722-6-30.

Cantwell-Dorris ER, O’Leary JJ, Sheils OM. BRAFV600E: implications for carcinogenesis and molecular therapy. 

. 2011;10(3):385-394. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-10-0799.

Tiacci E, Schiavoni G, Forconi F, et al. Simple genetic diagnosis of hairy cell leukemia by sensitive detection of the BRAF-V600E mutation. 

. 2012;119(1):192-195. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-08-371179.

Boyd EM, Bench AJ, van‘t Veer MB, et al. High resolution melting analysis for detection of BRAF exon 15 mutations in hairy cell leukaemia and other lymphoid malignancies. 

. 2011;155(5):609-612. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08868.x.

Schnittger S, Bacher U, Haferlach T, et al. Development and validation of a real-time quantification assay to detect and monitor BRAFV600E mutations in hairy cell leukemia. 

. 2012;119(13):3151-3154. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-10-3833

Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, et al; BRIM-3 Study Group. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. 

. 2011;364(26):2507-2516. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1103782.

Pettirossi V, Santi A, Imperi E, et al. BRAF inhibitors reverse the unique molecular signature and phenotype of hairy cell leukemia and exert potent antileukemic activity. 

. 2015;125(8):1207-1216. doi: 10.1182/blood-2014-10-603100.

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Hairy Cell Leukemia, version 3.2019. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/hairy_cell.pdf. Published January 31, 2019. Accessed April 19, 2019.

Kim A, Cohen MS. The discovery of vemurafenib for the treatment of BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. 

. 2016;11(9):907-916. doi: 10.1080/17460441.2016.1201057.

Tiacci E, Park JH, De Carolis L, et al. Targeting mutant BRAF in relapsed or refractory hairy-cell leukemia. 

. 2015;373(18):1733-1747. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1506583.

Park JH, Lee JO, Stone RM, et al. Acquired resistance to BRAF inhibition in HCL is rare and retreatment with vemurafenib at relapse can induce high response rates: final results of a phase II trial of vemurafenib in relapsed HCL. 

Menzies AM, Long GV, Murali R. Dabrafenib and its potential for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. 

. 2012;6:391-405. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S38998.

Johnson GL, Stuhlmiller TJ, Angus SP, et al. Molecular pathways: adaptive kinome reprogramming in response to targeted inhibition of the BRAF-MEK-ERK pathway in cancer. 

. 2014;20(10):2516-2522. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1081.

Blachly JS, Lozanski G, Lucas DM, et al. Cotreatment of hairy cell leukemia and melanoma with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib. 

Odogwu L, Mathieu L, Blumenthal G, et al. FDA approval summary: dabrafenib and trametinib for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancers harboring BRAF V600E mutations. 

. 2018;23(6):740-745. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0642.

Caeser R, Collord G, Yao W-Q, et al. Targeting MEK in vemurafenib-resistant hairy cell leukemia. 

. 2019;33(2):541-545. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0270-2.

Durham BH, Getta B, Dietrich S, et al. Genomic analysis of hairy cell leukemia identifies novel recurrent genetic alterations. 

. 2017;130(14):1644-1648. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-01-765107.

Tiacci E, Schiavoni G, Martelli MP, et al. Constant activation of the RAF-MEK-ERK pathway as a diagnostic and therapeutic target in hairy cell leukemia. 

. 2013;98(4):635-639. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2012.078071.

Efficacy and Safety of the Combination Therapy of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Subjects With BRAF V600E-Mutated Rare Cancers. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02034110. Updated September 7, 2018. Accessed April 18, 2019.

Sivina M, Kreitman RJ, Arons E, et al. The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (PCI-32765) blocks hairy cell leukaemia survival, proliferation and B cell receptor signalling: a new therapeutic approach. 

. 2014;166(2):177-188. doi: 10.1111/bjh.12867.

Campbell R, Chong G, Hawkes EA. Novel indications for Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, beyond hematological malignancies. 

Burger JA, Sivina M, Ravandi F. The microenvironment in hairy cell leukemia: pathways and potential therapeutic targets. 

. 2011;52(suppl 2):94-98. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2011.568649.

Jones J, Andritsos L, Kreitman RJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib in patients with hairy cell leukemia: stage 1 results of a phase 2 study. 

Salles G, Barrett M, Foà R, et al. Rituximab in B-cell hematologic malignancies: a review of 20 years of clinical experience. 

. 2017;34(10):2232-2273. doi: 10.1007/s12325-017-0612-x.

Visentin A, Imbergamo S, Frezzato F, et al. Bendamustine plus rituximab is an effective first-line treatment in hairy cell leukemia variant: a report of three cases. 

After decades of quiescence, the therapeutic landscape of hairy cell leukemia is undergoing rapid evolution.

Therapeutic Advances in Hairy Cell Leukemia | Priority Report

Practical Perspectives on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hairy Cell Leukemia

Advances in the Treatment of Relapsed or Refractory Hairy Cell Leukemia

Treatment of Hairy Cell Leukemia: Overview and First-Line Options