Roboz, Gail J.

Background. The inclusion of gene mutations and chromosomal abnormalities in the 2022 WHO and ICC Classifications of MDS has enhanced diagnostic precision and is expected to improve clinical decision-making process. Although these two systems share similarities, clinically relevant discrepancies still exist and potentially cause inconsistency in their adoption in a clinical setting. In this study on behalf of the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS), we adopted a data-driven approach to provide a harmonization roadmap between the 2022 WHO and ICC classification for MDS. A modified Delphi Process consensus approach is currently ongoing among icMDS experts to finalize a harmonized MDS classification scheme. Methods. We analyzed retrospective international cohorts of patients with a diagnosis of MDS (n=7017) and AML (n=1002) according to WHO 2016 criteria. Hierarchical Dirichlet Processes were applied to define clusters capturing broad dependencies among all gene mutations and cytogenetic abnormalities. To investigate the features of importance and their impact on the clustering process, we employed the SHapley Additive exPlanations approach (SHAP). This allowed to define harmonized labels for each clinical entity. The clinical relevance of the unsupervised clustering was assessed through the analysis of phenotypic features and outcomes among each group. ( Blood 2022;140: 9828-9830) Results. Patients' characteristics are summarized in Table 1. We identified 9 clusters, defined by specific genomic features. The cluster of highest hierarchical importance was characterized by biallelic inactivation of TP53 (biTP53). According to SHAP analysis, bi TP53 was defined as 2 or more TP53 mutations, or 1 mutation with copy number loss or cnLOH. Most patients assigned to bi TP53 cluster had TP53 VAF>10% (77.9%) and complex karyotype (70.1%). Assignment to bi TP53 cluster was irrespective of blast count. Patients with monoallelic TP53 mutation segregated into other clusters. Hierarchically, the second cluster included patients with del(5q). SHAP analysis highlighted 5q deletion alone, or with one other chromosomal abnormality other than -7, and absence of bi TP53, as the most relevant features. Most of these patients had blast counts <5% (88.1%). The third distinct cluster included patients with SF3B1 mutations (in the absence of concurrent del(7q), abn3q26.2, complex karyotype or RUNX1 mutation). Most patients with MDS and SF3B1 mutation had <5% blasts (94.2%). Common co-mutated variants in the SF3B1 cluster included mutant DNMT3A (25.2%) and TET2 (38.3%). Morphologically defined MDS cases (i.e., not meeting criteria for bi TP53, del(5q) or SF3B1) were preferentially assigned to the following additional clusters: SF3B1 and concurrent higher-risk mutations (e.g., RUNX1 and ASXL1); SRSF2 and concomitant TET2 mutations; U2AF1 mutations with del(20q), del(7q) or -7; SRSF2 with TET2 mutations and co-mutational patterns including RUNX1 and ASXL1; and AML-like genomic signatures. Our analyses suggest that morphologically defined MDS is characterized by a large heterogeneity in terms of mutation profiles, not entirely captured by the presence of unilineage versus multilineage dysplasia, percentage of bone marrow blasts, and presence of hypocellularity and fibrosis. To better investigate the continuum between high risk MDS (i.e., patients with ≥10% blasts) and AML, an exploratory comparison was made using a cohort of AML (defined according to WHO 2016) patients analyzed using the same statistical methods. Only a partial overlap in genetic signatures was observed between MDS with ≥10% blasts and AML. However, similarities were observed between the AML-like MDS clusters (characterized by mutant NPM1, bZIP CEBPA, and Core Binding Factor abnormalities) and AML clusters defined by the same genetic signature, thus supporting the classification of these entities as AML, irrespective of blast count. Conclusion. Our study demonstrated the utility of a data-driven approach based on advanced statistical methods to generate a harmonized classification for MDS. Table 2 shows a provisional, hierarchical classification algorithm. Further refinement of entity labels and classification criteria is the subject of the ongoing modified Delphi Process consensus approach among icMDS experts.

Background: Oral decitabine/cedazuridine (ASTX727) is a fixed dose combination of decitabine (35 mg) and the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine (100 mg) given once daily X 5 days on a 28-day cycle producing pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure equivalent to the standard intravenous (IV) decitabine regimen of 20 mg/m 2 daily X 5 days on a 28-day cycle. This was demonstrated in the pivotal ASCERTAIN study (Garcia-Manero, et al, ASH 2019) as it provided a PK bridge to existing decitabine data and demonstrated median OS was 31.7 mo. (Savona,et al. Intl. MDSF International Congress on MDS, 2021). Subjects were initially classified by the International Prognosis Scoring System (IPSS) for historical reasons, however IPSS-R and IPSS-M are enhancements to IPSS that provide dynamic risk assessment for predicting clinical outcomes in MDS. Here, the objective was to re-classify the MDS subjects enrolled on the ASCERTAIN study by IPSS-R and IPSS-M and measure the impact of informing patient outcomes based on re-calculated risk assessment. Methods: One hundred thirty-three subjects with MDS/CMML (chronic myelomonocytic leukemia) were enrolled in ASCERTAIN and were randomly assigned either IV decitabine for cycle 1 and oral decitabine/cedazuridine for cycle 2 or the opposite treatment sequence. All subjects continuing beyond cycle 2 received oral decitabine/cedazuridine for all subsequent cycles until treatment discontinuation for disease progression, toxicity, patient's decision, or HSCT. Whole blood collected prior to treatment was used for DNA isolation and molecular abnormalities identified using next-generation sequencing (NGS) hematologic malignancy panel of 179 genes including all genes commonly mutated in MDS. In the initial analysis of clinical outcomes, subjects were classified by IPSS with response assessment by IWG 2006 IPSS low and Int-1 risk levels were categorized as lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS), whereas IPSS Int-2 and high-risk categories were categorized as higher-risk MDS (HR-MDS). Subjects with sufficient data based on (e.g., available heme parameters, cytogenetics, NGS etc.) were reclassified by IPSS-R and IPSS-M. Subjects with IPSS-R score of ≤3.5 or IPSS-M of either very low, low, or moderate low were categorized as LR-MDS. Similarly subjects with IPSS-R score of >3.5 or an IPSS-M categorization of either moderate high, high, or very high were categorized as HR-MDS. Reclassified subjects were reassessed for CR (Complete Response), OS, and LFS and Harrell's concordance index (c-index) was used to describe the level of agreement between each scale and outcomes. Results: Based on the available data, the number of MDS subjects in the different risk classifications were the following: IPSS: 117, IPSS-R: 104, and IPSS-M: 105. Thirteen and 12 subjects on the IPSS could not be reclassified in the IPSS-R and IPSS-M, respectively, including 5 Int-1 and 2 low-risk MDS cases. CMML subjects were excluded from these analyses. Re-classification generally resulted in the upgrade of the subjects from LR-MDS to HR-MDS (Fig. 1). Thirty-one (26.5%) subjects from IPSS were reallocated in the IPSS-R to different risk categories; 3 (9.7%) were downgraded and 28 (90.3%) were upgraded. Similarly on reclassification with IPSS-M 34 (32.4%) of the patients reclassified; 5 (14.8%) were downgraded and 29 (85.3%) were upgraded. For IPSS LR-MDS, 23.2% of patients achieved CR, and 22.9% in the IPSS HR-MDS. Similarly, 21.6% patients achieved CR in the IPSS-R LR-MDS, and 23.9% in the IPSS-R HR-MDS; 26.3% patients achieved CR in the IPSS-M LR-MDS, and 20.9% in the IPSS-M HR-MDS. The c-index for the IPSS was .64 (OS) and .67 (LFS), IPSS-R was .70 (OS) and .71 (LFS), and .75 (OS) and .78 (LFS) for the IPSS-M (Table1). Conclusion: Reclassification from IPSS to IPSS-R or IPSS-M upgraded multiple subjects from a LR to a HR category, describing the ASCERTAIN patient population as a majority higher risk population with worse prognosis than previously assumed based on the IPSS. The efficacy as measured by the CR rates did not change when the LR and HR categories were defined by the different risk stratification systems. In contrast, the c-index improves with migration from IPSS to IPSS-R to IPSS-M, indicating an increased discriminatory ability of IPSS-M score in comparison to IPSS and IPSS-R, to predict patient outcomes.

Background In unfit patients (pts) with newly diagnosed (ND) AML, long-term survival remains short (mOS 14.7 months) despite improved responses (CR 37% and CR/CRi 66%) with azacitidine (AZA) and venetoclax (VEN) (VIALE-A, DiNardo NEJM 2020). In a pooled analysis of AZA-VEN in ND AML pts with poor risk cytogenetics the response rates were higher in TP53wt pts (CR/CRi 70%) compared with TP53mut pts (CR/CRi 41%) (Pollyea Clin Cancer Res 2022). The measurable residual disease (MRD)-negative rate was 41% in AZA-VEN treated pts in VIALE-A which was associated with improved survival (Pratz JCO 2022). Pivekimab sunirine (PVEK, IMGN632) is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) comprising a high-affinity CD123 antibody, cleavable linker, and an indolinobenzodiazepine pseudodimer (IGN) payload. The novel IGN payload alkylates DNA and causes single strand breaks without crosslinking (Kovtun Blood Adv 2018). Methods This is an ongoing, open-label, multicenter, Phase 1b/2 study of PVEK in combination with AZA +VEN in adults with ND CD123-positive AML (any CD123+ expression by local flow cytometry or IHC). Pts received the recommended phase 2 dose of PVEK 0.045 mg/kg IV on D7 + AZA 75 mg/m 2 SC or IV daily on D1-7 + VEN up to 400 mg PO daily for 14 to 28 days (based on cohort assignment) in a 28-day cycle. Bone marrow assessment was performed at D14 (cohort 1) or D21 (cohort 2) of cycle 1 to determine VEN duration. The primary endpoints are composite CR rate (CCR [CR+CRh+CRp+CRi]), MRD rate (assessed centrally [Hematologics, Inc.] by flow cytometry; <0.1% defined as negative) and duration of remission. Key secondary endpoints are safety, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity. Responses were determined using ELN 2017 criteria (with the addition of CRh) and a 14-day post-marrow count recovery window. Results As of July 17, 2023, data is available for 50 ND pts (n=25 per cohort) treated with PVEK+AZA+VEN and are aggregately reported here. The median age was 74 years (range, 46-83), 42% were ≥ 75 years old, 26% had secondary AML, 64% were ELN 2017 adverse risk, and 38% had a TP53mut. The most common non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) (all grades [grade 3+]) seen in > 20% of all pts were febrile neutropenia (44% [38%]), constipation (42% [2%]), peripheral edema (36% [4%]), diarrhea (36% [2%]), hypophosphatemia (32% [0%], nausea (28% [4%]), and hypokalemia (24% [2%]). No veno-occlusive disease (VOD) events were reported. In responders, the median time to achieve absolute neutrophil count ≥500/µL and platelet count ≥50,000/µL was 35.5 days (range, 20-55) and 22 days (range, 20-55), respectively. The median post-remission cycle delay (beyond cycle day 28) was 14 days. Two pts discontinued PVEK due to a TEAE (edema; marrow aplasia). The 60-day mortality was 4%. In the ITT population (N=50) the CR rate was 52% (26/50), and the CCR rate was 66% (33/50). In pts ≥ 75 years old, the CCR rate was 76% (16/21). In pts known to be TP53wt, both the CR and CCR rate was 88% (22/25). Additional response subsets in Table 1. Twenty-one pts received 9-14 days of VEN, 9 pts received 15-21 days of VEN and 20 pts received ≥ 22 days of VEN in cycle 1; of those who received ≤ 14 days of VEN the CR rate was 71% (15/21) and the CCR rate was 76% (16/21). Of the 26 pts who achieved CCR and had an MRD-evaluable sample, 73% (19/26) achieved MRD negativity (CCR MRD-, <0.1% residual blasts); notably all had undetectable MRD levels (lower level of detection is 0.02%). MRD-negativity was achieved rapidly with a median of 1.7 months (range, 0.8-4.5). CCR MRD- rates were high across major molecular subsets, including FLT3 (ITD/TKD) at 100% (7/7), IDH1/2 at 89% (8/9), and NPM1 at 89% (8/9), as well as ELN risk groups (intermediate 80% [8/10]; adverse 64% [9/14]). Conclusion With a manageable safety profile in pts with ND AML, the PVEK+AZA+VEN triplet demonstrated anti-leukemia activity with robust CR rates and early MRD negative responses in a cohort enriched for adverse disease characteristics (64% ELN adverse risk; 38% TP53mut). Encouraging CCR MRD- rates were observed across cytogenetic/molecular subsets, and the majority of responding pts achieved early and deep remissions, which may translate to improved clinical outcomes. The regimen was well tolerated with no new safety signals, and the addition of PVEK to the AZA-VEN backbone did not appear to meaningfully prolong count recovery.

TPS7073 Background: Despite improved outcomes with azacitidine (AZA) and venetoclax (VEN) in frontline unfit AML (CR 37% and CR/CRi 66%), long-term survival for these patients remains inadequate (mOS < 15m, DiNardo NEJM 2020). CD123 is expressed on the majority of AML blasts and leukemic stem cells while minimally expressed on normal hematopoietic stem cells (Kovtun Blood Adv 2018). Pivekimab sunirine (PVEK, IMGN632) is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) comprising a high-affinity CD123 antibody, cleavable linker, and an indolinobenzodiazepine pseudodimer (IGN) payload. The IGN payload alkylates DNA and causes single strand breaks without crosslinking. IGNs are designed to have high potency against tumor cells, while demonstrating less toxicity to normal marrow progenitors than other DNA-targeting payloads. Clinical data in relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML (Daver ASH 2022) supported the continued clinical exploration of the PVEK+AZA+VEN triplet. The current enrolling dose expansion cohorts (Regimen C; Cohorts 1 and 2) in frontline AML will evaluate antileukemia activity and MRD levels in the combination of PVEK+AZA+VEN. Regimen E will enroll patients with R/R AML to evaluate the safety and antileukemia activity of PVEK in combination with magrolimab. Methods: This is an open-label, multicenter, Phase 1b/2 study of PVEK administered in combination regimens in patients with frontline and R/R CD123-positive AML. Patients will receive the established recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of PVEK 0.045 mg/kg IV, as a < 30-minute outpatient infusion. In Regimen C, patients will receive PVEK 0.045 mg/kg IV on D7 + azacitidine 75 mg/m 2 SC or IV daily on days 1 to 7, and venetoclax up to 400 mg PO daily for at least 14 days (Cohort 1) or for up to 28 days (Cohort 2) in a 28-day cycle. In Regimen E, R/R AML patients will receive PVEK 0.045 mg/kg IV on D1 of the 28-day cycle in combination with magrolimab at 30 mg/kg Q2W, after the standard ramp up schedule. Regimen C will enroll adults with untreated AML, CD123+ by flow cytometry or IHC and no prior HMA treatments. The primary endpoints for Regimen C are composite CR rate, overall response rate (ORR), duration of remission (DOR), MRD levels and key secondary endpoints are safety, PK and immunogenicity. Regimen E will enroll adult patients with relapsed or refractory CD123+ AML with up to 2 prior lines of therapy. The primary endpoint for Regimen E is dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) and key secondary endpoints are safety, antileukemic activity, PK and immunogenicity. The PVEK+AZA+VEN triplet (Regimen C) is currently enrolling frontline unfit patients across sites in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK and USA. The PVEK+Magro doublet (Regimen E) is planned to be open for enrollment mid-2023 at sites in the USA. Clinical trial information: NCT04086264 .