McMahon, Christine M.

Ziftomenib - a potent, selective, oral menin inhibitor - is approved as monotherapy for adults with relapsed/refractory (R/R) NPM1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (NPM1-m AML). The KOMET-007 phase 1 trial investigated clinical activity and tolerability of ziftomenib in combination with standard therapies for R/R and newly diagnosed AML. Here, we report outcomes of adults with R/R NPM1-m AML treated with ziftomenib plus venetoclax/azacitidine. In phase 1a, patients received ziftomenib 200, 400, or 600 mg once daily with standard doses of venetoclax/azacitidine. In phase 1b, ziftomenib 600 mg was selected for expansion. Sixty-seven patients were treated (27 phase 1a; 40 phase 1b). Median age was 66 years, and 55% were men. Median number of prior therapies was 1 (range 1-8); 55% received prior venetoclax and 22% had prior transplantation. Most common (≥20%) grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were leukopenia (34%), thrombocytopenia (28%), febrile neutropenia and neutropenia (25% each). Six patients developed QTc prolongation (1 ziftomenib-related; grade 1), and 2 experienced differentiation syndrome (grade 3); all events were successfully managed. In patients receiving ziftomenib 600 mg, composite complete remission (CRc) rate was 46% (22/48), with 67% (12/18) achieving central measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity (<0.01% threshold). In venetoclax-naïve and -exposed patients, CRc rates were 70% (16/23) and 24% (6/25), with MRD-negativity rates of 75% (9/12) and 50% (3/6), respectively. Median duration of response was 8.6 months, and median overall survival was not reached. The combination of ziftomenib 600 mg with venetoclax/azacitidine was well tolerated with deep and durable clinical activity in R/R NPM1-m AML. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT05735184.

Abstract Introduction: HMA monotherapy (HMAm) continues to be the standard of care for HR-MDS. While the addition of VEN to azacitidine (AZA) improved overall survival (OS) and complete remission (CR) rates among older pts with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) over AZA monotherapy, the recently completed phase III VERONA trial of AZA+/-VEN in HR-MDS failed to show an OS benefit for AZA/VEN over AZA monotherapy. Using the icMDS VALIDATE database, we compared outcomes of pts with HR-MDS treated with HMA or HMA/VEN as frontline therapy. Methods: The icMDS VALIDATE database includes over 4000 adult MDS pts who received HMA-based therapy from 32 international centers in 9 countries. For this analysis, we included pts with HR-MDS defined by International Prognostic Scoring System [IPSS] ≥1.5 or IPSS-revised [IPSS-R] ≥4 (at diagnosis or HMA initiation) and treated with HMAm or HMA/VEN as frontline therapy for HR-MDS. We assessed responses based on IWG 2023 criteria (Zeidan A et al, Blood 2023). Composite complete remission (cCR) was defined as CR+CRbi+CRuni+CRh+CRequivalent. We calculated OS from time of HMA initiation to date of death from any cause. Pts lost to follow-up were censored at the date they were last known to be alive. We used Kaplan-Meier methods to calculate OS and compared OS between different groups using the log-rank test. We used Cox and logistic regression models to adjust for baseline prognostic variables as appropriate. The study was funded by an independent grant from Abbvie. Results: A total of 1907 pts met eligibility and were included (1552 AZA, 221 decitabine, 134 HMA+VEN). 479 pts subsequently underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT; 430 after HMAm [32.6%]; 49 after HMA/VEN [37.1%]). Our cohort was enriched for pts with adverse disease characteristics including complex karyotype (33.6%) and TP53 mutations (28.7%). Compared to pts treated with HMA/VEN, pts treated with HMAm were more likely to be male (p=0.012), have lower baseline platelet counts (p=0.037), peripheral blood (PB) blasts (p=0.004), or bone marrow blasts (p<0.001), and were less likely to have very high risk IPSS-M (p<0.001), TP53 mutations (p<0.001), or complex karyotype (p=0.020). In unadjusted analyses, the rate of cCR was significantly lower in HMAm treated pts compared to HMA/VEN treated pts (27.7% vs. 48.8%, p<0.001). However, CR rate was not significantly different (11.7% vs. 17.1% for HMAm and HMA/VEN, respectively, p=0.22). After adjusting for age, sex, and IPSS-M, pts treated with HMA/VEN were more likely to achieve cCR compared to HMAm with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.49 (95% CI: 1.56-3.96, p<0.001). When separated by TP53 mutation status, the OR for cCR for HMA/VEN vs HMAm was 4.17 (95%CI: 2.14-8.31; p<0.001) and 1.27 (95%CI: 0.54-2.86; p=0.57) for TP53 wild-type and TP53-mutant pts, respectively. In unadjusted analyses, median OS was 17.4 months for HMAm and 19.6 months for HMA+VEN, and OS did not differ significantly by treatment type (p=0.33). For HMAm treated pts, the OS rates at year 1, 2, 3 were 0.65 (95%CI: 0.63-0.67), 0.38 (95%CI: 0.36-0.40), and 0.27 (95%CI: 0.25-0.29), respectively. For HMA/VEN treated pts, the OS rates at year 1, 2, 3 were 0.64 (95%CI: 0.56-0.73), 0.45 (95%CI: 0.36-0.56), and 0.37 (95%CI: 0.27-0.51), respectively. In a multivariate analysis adjusting for age, sex, PB blast, IPSS-M and allo-SCT as a time-varying covariate, treatment with HMA/VEN vs HMAm did not significantly influence OS (hazard ratio (HR) of OS for HMA/VEN vs HMAm: 0.89, 95%CI: 0.69-1.13, p=0.33). When stratified by TP53 mutation status, HR of HMA/VEN vs. HMAm was favorable for TP53 wild-type (HR: 0.47; 95%CI: 0.29-0.74) but not TP53-mutant pts (HR=0.96; 95%CI: 0.66-1.41). Adjusting for other variables in the model, HR for pts who underwent vs. those who did not undergo allo-SCT were 0.65 (95% CI: 0.49-0.85) and 0.36 (95%CI: 0.24-0.53) in TP53 wild-type and mutant patients, respectively. Conclusion: In this large, international retrospective analysis from the icMDS VALIDATE database, HMA/VEN was associated with higher cCR rates—but not CR rates—compared to HMAm among pts with HR-MDS, though we observed no significant differences in OS. In our analysis, clinical benefit from the addition of VEN was most clear in TP53 wild-type pts, and allo-SCT was associated with improved OS regardless of baseline TP53 status. Our analysis was limited by the relatively small number of HMA/VEN-treated pts and heterogeneous real-world treatment patterns.

Abstract Introduction TP53MT are associated with poor outcomes in MDS, especially in the context of biallelic MT. We have previously reported on outcomes of pts with HR-MDS with TP53MT who received HMA in the VALIDATE dataset (Kewan T et al, ASH 2023). Here we provide expanded analyses focusing on outcomes post allo-HCT, and we explore the prognostic significance of different classification methods for biallelic TP53MT. Methods The VALIDATE database includes 4,732 pts with MDS who received HMA-based frontline therapy from 32 international centers in 9 countries. For this study, only pts with HR-MDS with molecular data at time of diagnosis were included. Biallelic TP53MT status was assessed using three classification schemes: WHO 2022, ICC 2022, and a VAF-based Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) method.1TP53 copy neutral loss of heterozygosity (CN-LOH) was evaluable in 386 pts (118 had TP53MT). Treatment responses were evaluated using IWG 2023 criteria (Zeidan A et al, Blood 2023). Composite complete remission (cCR) was defined as CR+CRbi+CRuni+CRh+CRequivalent. We calculated OS from time of HMA initiation to date of death or last follow up. Unsupervised clustering (MOSAIC framework) was applied to identify molecular subgroups within the TP53MT cohort. The study was funded by an independent grant from Abbvie. Results A total of 1,485 pts were included. Median age was 69 years (IQR: 62–76), with 66% male pts. Median bone marrow blast was 7%, and 28% had a complex karyotype. Treatment regimens included azacitidine (68%), decitabine (15%), HMA/Venetoclax (8%), and other HMA combinations (9%); 34% underwent allo-HCT. Overall, 392 (26%) had TP53MT with 430 TP53 mutations (missense: 316; truncating: 89). Biallelic TP53MT % varied by classification: 72% (WHO), 84% (ICC), and 85% (CCF). Compared to TP53 wild-type (TP53WT) pts, pts with TP53MT had worse OS (median: 11.5 vs. 23.9 months [mo], p< 0.001), were younger (68 vs. 70 years, p=0.039), and had lower counts at diagnosis. Complex karyotype (81% vs. 14%) and chromosomal abnormalities were more frequent in TP53MT pts. Pts with TP53MT also had fewer co-mutations in other genes. Response to HMA was evaluable in 1,094 pts: cCR and CR were 32% and 13%, respectively. TP53MT pts had higher cCR (39% vs. 29%, p=0.001) than TP53WT, but similar CR rates (16% vs. 12%, p=0.093). According to WHO 2022, biallelic TP53MT had higher CR rates than monoallelic TP53MT (18% vs. 8%, p=0.03), but similar cCR. ICC and CCF classifications did not differentiate response rates. Median OS did not differ by TP53MT allelic status using WHO or ICC definitions. However, using the CCF method, pts with biallelic TP53MT had shorter OS than monoallelic TP53MT (10.4 vs. 17.2 mo, p=0.038). In multivariable models adjusted for age, gender, and allo-HCT, only the CCF-defined biallelic TP53MT group had significantly worse OS (HR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1–2.4). TP53MT pts undergoing allo-HCT had improved OS regardless of allelic status. Median OS for TP53MT pts with allo-HCT was 18.9 vs. 9.2 mo without all-HCT. This benefit was observed across WHO, ICC, and CCF classifications. However, a TP53MT VAF ≥19% predicted worse OS even post allo-HCT (14.6 vs. 47.1 mo, p<0.001). At 1 year, the survival rate was 78% (95%CI: 69-89%) in TP53MT pts who underwent allo-HCT and had cCR vs. 68% (95%CI: 55-84%) in pts who did not have cCR. However, 1 year survival rate was significantly higher for pts with TP53MT who did not have allo-HCT and achieved cCR (60%, 95%CI: 48-76%) vs. no cCR (26%, 95%CI: 20-35%). Unsupervised clustering of 335 TP53MT pts identified 9 molecular clusters (MCs). MC2, characterized by low TP53MT VAF (median 17%), fewer co-mutations, and frequent del17p, was associated with significantly improved OS (17.9 mo) and predicted favorable outcome (HR for death: 0.6; 95% CI: 0.4–0.8). Other clusters were enriched for adverse features (e.g., high VAF, multi-hit TP53MT).Conclusions The CCF method appears to best classify biallelic TP53MT pts with worse survival in the absence of accurate assessment of LOH status. Treatment response per IWG 2023 for TP53MT pts was associated with OS only in non-transplanted pts. Allo-HCT improved survival across TP53MT subsets, but TP53 VAF ≥19% at diagnosis remained a strong negative prognostic factor. Integrative clustering revealed a less aggresive molecular subset among TP53MT pts, suggesting refined risk stratification may guide therapy in this high-risk population. Ref: 1.Bahaj et al. J Hematol Oncol 2023.

Abstract Introduction: Marrow complete remission (mCR) in 2006 IWG criteria for MDS (Cheson B et al, Blood 2006) reflects achieving bone marrow (BM) blast percentage below 5% but is frequently not associated with meaningful count recovery. While mCR + hematologic improvement (HI) does reflect wide ranges of count improvement or transfusion reductions, HI is difficult to measure accurately in routine clinical practice. The 2023 International Working Group (IWG) response criteria (Zeidan A et al, Blood 2023) eliminated the mCR category without meaningful count recovery and reclassified mCR associated with meaningful count recovery into specific “less-than-CR” categories. Still, many clinical trials continue to use mCR as a secondary efficacy endpoint or as a part of overall response rate (ORR). Within the icMDS VALIDATE database, we assessed the association of mCR with OS in hypomethylating agent (HMA)-treated higher risk (HR)-MDS patients among both (1) transplanted and (2) non-transplanted patients. Methods We included patients with HR-MDS (defined as IPSS ≥1.5 and/or IPSS-R >3.5) who received HMA-based therapies from the international icMDS VALIDATE dataset. We evaluated the best response by IWG 2006 criteria into CR, mCR, or no CR/mCR. We then reclassified patients with mCR per IWG 2023 criteria into either (A) having achieved a composite CR (cCR) defined as CR + CR equivalent (CRequ) + CR with bilineage count recovery (CRbi) + CR with unilineage count recovery (CRuni) + CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) or (B) not having achieved cCR (no cCR). OS was calculated from time of HMA initiation to date of death or last follow-up by using 6-month landmark analyses. We used Kaplan-Meier methods to estimate OS, and the Log-rank test to compare OS. VALIDATE is supported by an independent grant from AbbVie. Results A total of1049 patients met eligibility.Median age of patients was 69 (range 21-95), 64% were men. While 61% received azacitidine, 17% received decitabine, and 22% received HMA-based combination therapy. In total, 37% underwent subsequent allogenic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Based on IWG 2006 criteria, 17%, 33%, and 50% achieved CR, mCR, and no CR/mCR as their best response, respectively. Patients achieving CR had superior median OS (25 months, 95% CI: 21-34 months) compared to those with mCR (16 months, 95% CI: 13-18 months; p=0.038) and no CR/mCR (15 months, 95% CI: 12-17 months; p=0.001). In patients who received a subsequent allo-HCT, the median OS for patients with mCR (30 months, 95% CI: 21-54 months; 1 year OS: 71%, 2 year OS: 55%) did not significantly differ compared to patients with CR (59 months, 95% CI: 25 months-not reached, p=0.80; 1 year OS: 73%, 2 year OS 62%) and patients with no CR/mCR (32 months, 95% CI: 21-45 months, p=0.46; 1 year OS: 69%, 2 year OS 54%). In contrast, in patients treated with HMA therapy alone without subsequent allo-HCT, median OS for patients with mCR (11 months, 95% CI: 9-15 months; 1 year OS: 46%, 2 year OS: 23%) did not significantly differ compared to patients with no CR/mCR (11 months, 95% CI: 9-14 months, p=0.85; 1 year OS: 47%, 2 year OS: 22%) but was significantly shorter compared to patients with CR (20 months, 95% CI: 17-28 months, p<0.001; 1 year OS: 69%, 2 year OS: 46%). Patients with mCR by IWG 2006 (N=347) were reclassified per IWG 2023 into having either achieved a cCR (N=219, 63%) or no cCR (N=128, 37%). Specifically, patients with mCR were reclassified per IWG 2023 into CR (4.9%), CRequ (0.6%), CRbi (26.8%), CRuni (29.4%), CRh (1.4%), PR (0%), HI (10%), no response (21.9%) and PD (4.9%). Patients with mCR who were reclassified into cCR had an improved median OS (16 months, 95% CI: 15-26 months; 1 year OS: 62%; 2 year OS: 43%) compared to patients reclassified into no cCR per IWG 2023 (13 months, 95% CI: 11-17 months, p=0.023; 1 year OS: 52%; 2 year OS: 31%). Conclusions Using the large icMDS VALIDATE dataset, we found that achievement of mCR by 2006 IWG criteria was not associated with improved OS compared to patients who did not achieve CR/mCR. Reclassification of mCR using IWG 2023 highlights the heterogeneity within the mCR group and suggests that IWG 2023 criteria stratifies outcomes in patients previously labeled as mCR by IWG 2006. IWG 2023 should be the standard used for ORR assessment in all future clinical trials involving patients with HR-MDS.

Abstract Introduction: Leukemogenesis is driven by nucleophosmin 1 mutations(NPM1-m) or lysine methyltransferase 2A rearrangements(KMT2A-r) in ~35–40% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cases. Nearly half of AML patients will develop relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease within a year, with <20% expected response rate following venetoclax/azacitidine (Ven/Aza) and progressively poorer outcomes with each subsequent line of therapy. Ziftomenib–a potent, highly selective, oral, investigational menin inhibitor–has demonstrated clinical activity as both monotherapy and in combination for adults with R/R NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML. KOMET-007 (NCT05735184) is an ongoing, open-label, ph1a/b study of ziftomenib in combination with standard chemotherapies in adults with newly diagnosed and R/R NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML. Here we present updated safety and clinical activity in patients with R/R AML treated with the recommended ph2 dose (RP2D) of ziftomenib 600 mg in combination with Ven/Aza across ph1a/b. Methods: Adults (≥18y) with R/R NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML enrolled independently into separate arms; patients in dose escalation (ph1a) and expansion (ph1b) were treated with oral ziftomenib 600 mg once daily (QD; continuously from C1D8 onward) plus standard doses of Ven/Aza. Primary endpoints: AEs, complete remission (CR; ELN 2022), dose limiting toxicities (DLT; ph1a only). Key secondary endpoints: composite CR (CRc; CR with full, partial or incomplete hematologic recovery), overall response, duration of response. Results: As of June 25, 2025, 80 patients (51 NPM1-m, 29 KMT2A-r) with R/R AML were enrolled (20 ph1a; 60 ph1b) and treated with ziftomenib 600 mg QD + Ven/Aza. Median age was 63y (range 19–85), 50% were female, 74% had ECOG PS 0–1; 22 (28%) had FLT3 co-mutations and 7 (9%) had IDH co-mutations. Median number of prior therapies was 1 (range 1–6); 18% (14/80) had prior stem cell transplant; 25 (49%) NPM1-m and 19 (66%) KMT2A-r patients had prior Ven exposure. 71 patients (89%) had Gr ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs, most commonly (≥20% of patients) febrile neutropenia (31%), decreased platelet count (28%), decreased white blood cell count (26%) and decreased neutrophil count (23%). Gr ≥3 ziftomenib-related AEs occurred in 30 patients (38%), most commonly febrile neutropenia (9%) and anemia (8%). 6% of patients discontinued ziftomenib treatment due to AEs. Differentiation syndrome (DS) occurred in 1 (1%) NPM1-m patient (Gr 3), which lasted 1d and successfully resolved with protocol-specified DS mitigation. No ziftomenib-related QTc prolongation was reported with the combination, and no DLTs were observed in ph1a. 70 patients (43 NPM1-m; 27 KMT2A-r) were response-evaluable (≥1 response assessment or death). Median follow-up was 18.0 wks for NPM1-m and 16.4 wks for KMT2A-r. Overall response rates (ORRs) were 65% (28/43) for NPM1-m and 33% (9/27) for KMT2A-r. CRc rates were 49% (21/43) for NPM1-m and 22% (6/27) for KMT2A-r after median time to first CRc of 4.9 wks (range 2.7–15.6) and 5.5 wks (range 2.6–18.9), respectively; measurable residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates (local) among tested CRc responders were 50% (9/18) for NPM1-m and 60% (3/5) for KMT2A-r after median time to first MRD-negativity of 5.9 wks (range 2.9–15.6) and 8.1 wks (range 7.7–18.9), respectively. During continuous ziftomenib administration in patients who achieved CRc, median time to neutrophil recovery (≥1×109/L) was 43d overall (43d for NPM1-m; 71d for KMT2A-r), and median time to platelet recovery (≥100×109/L) was 27d overall (27d for NPM1-m; 23d for KMT2A-r). As of the data cutoff, overall median duration of CRc was not estimable; median overall survival was not estimable for NPM1-m and 21.1 wks for KMT2A-r. In Ven-naive patients, CRc rates were 71% (15/21) for NPM1-m and 33% (3/9) for KMT2A-r; CR rates were 48% (10/21) and 11% (1/9); and ORRs were 81% (17/21) and 56% (5/9), respectively. The study is ongoing with 44% (19/43) of NPM1-m and 11% (3/27) of KMT2A-r patients still on treatment, with responses continuing to evolve.Updated data to be presented.Conclusions: In the ongoing KOMET-007 study, ziftomenib RP2D of 600 mg QD + Ven/Aza was well tolerated with robust clinical activity in patients with R/R NPM1-mor KMT2A-rAML. No ziftomenib-related QTc prolongation was reported. One case of DS (NPM1-m, Gr 3) successfully resolved with protocol-specified mitigation. These data support further investigation of ziftomenib-based combinations in R/R NPM1-mand KMT2A-rAML.

Abstract Introduction: Nucleophosmin 1 mutations (NPM1-m) drive leukemogenesis in approximately 30% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cases. Ziftomenib is a potent, highly selective, oral, investigational menin inhibitor that has demonstrated clinical activity as both monotherapy and in combination for adults with NPM1-m or lysine methyltransferase 2A-rearranged (KMT2A-r) AML. KOMET-007 (NCT05735184) is an ongoing, open-label, dose-escalation (phase 1a) and expansion (phase 1b) study of ziftomenib in combination with standard chemotherapies in NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML. Here we present phase 1b safety and clinical activity in patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML who received the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of ziftomenib 600 mg in combination with venetoclax and azacitidine (Ven/Aza). Methods: Adults (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML who were not eligible for intensive chemotherapy were enrolled in phase 1b and received ziftomenib 600 mg once daily plus standard doses of Ven/Aza. Ziftomenib was orally administered once daily continuously from Cycle 1 Day 8 onward. Phase 1b primary endpoints were adverse events (AEs) and complete remission (CR) per ELN 2022. Secondary endpoints included composite CR (CRc; defined as CR with full, partial, or incomplete hematologic recovery), overall response, and duration of response. Local measurable residual disease (MRD) was assessed by next-generation sequencing, RT-qPCR, and multiparameter flow cytometry. Results: As of June 25, 2025, 39 patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML were enrolled and treated with ziftomenib 600 mg once daily plus Ven/Aza in phase 1b. Median age was 75 years (range 53–93), 54% were female, 46% had ECOG PS 0–1; 12 (31%) had FLT3 co-mutations and 9 (23%) had IDH co-mutations. Median duration of follow-up was 16.3 weeks (range 1.6–41.1). Twenty-nine patients (74%) had grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs, most commonly (≥20% of patients) decreased neutrophil count (31%) and decreased platelet count (23%). Grade ≥3 ziftomenib-related AEs occurred in 14 patients (36%), most commonly decreased neutrophil count (15%) and decreased platelet count (13%). No ziftomenib treatment discontinuations occurred due to AEs. Differentiation syndrome occurred in 1 (3%) patient (grade 2), which successfully resolved with protocol-specified mitigation. One patient (3%) had investigator-assessed ziftomenib-associated QTc prolongation (grade 3); however, there were concomitant significant electrolyte abnormalities and event resolved with electrolyte repletion. At time of data cutoff, 31 NPM1-m patients were response-evaluable (≥1 response assessment or death). CRc rate was 84% (26/31) after a median time to first CRc of 3.5 weeks (range 2.4–9.4), with local MRD-negativity rates among tested CRc responders of 54% (13/24) after a median time to first MRD-negativity of 8.4 weeks (range 2.9–17.4). CR rate was 58% (18/31) and overall response rate was 94% (29/31), with responses and MRD-negativity rates continuing to evolve. During continuous ziftomenib administration in patients who achieved CRc, median time to neutrophil recovery (≥1×109/L) was 36 days, and median time to platelet recovery (≥100×109/L) was 28 days. The median duration of response and median overall survival were not reached as of the data cutoff, at a median follow-up of 16.3 weeks. The study is ongoing, with 81% (25/31) of NPM1-m patients still on-study and 77% (24/31) still on ziftomenib treatment. Updated safety and clinical activity results will be presented.Conclusions: In the ongoing KOMET-007 study, ziftomenib RP2D of 600 mg once daily combined with Ven/Aza was well tolerated and demonstrated robust clinical activity in patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML, including 84% CRc after a median of 3.5 weeks and 54% CRc MRD-negativity after a median of 8.4 weeks. Low rates of ziftomenib-related cytopenia and no additional myelosuppression were observed with this combination. One case each of differentiation syndrome (grade 2) and investigator-assessed QTc (grade 3) were successfully resolved. Taken together, these data support the RP2D determination and advancement of this ziftomenib-based combination in the KOMET-017 (NCT07007312) randomized phase 3 study in patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML.

The NCCN Guidelines for Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) provide recommendations for the evaluation, diagnosis, and comprehensive care of patients with MDS based on a review of recent clinical evidence that has led to important advances in treatment or has yielded new information on biologic factors that may have prognostic significance in MDS. The multidisciplinary panel of MDS experts is convened at least on an annual basis. During the annual meeting, the panel evaluates new and emerging data to inform their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights review the recent updates, including treatment recommendations both for lower-risk and higher-risk MDS, preference stratification of therapeutic agents, and emerging data on novel therapeutics.

Introduction The International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and its revised version (IPSS-R) were developed using datasets from patients (pts) with untreated MDS. The cytogenetic risk groups used in IPSS-R were expanded to 5 groups from the 3 used in IPSS. Among the new groups introduced in IPSS-R is the “very complex” karyotype (VCK) where ≥4 karyotypic abnormalities are seen compared to “complex karyotype (CK)” with only 3 abnormalities. However, the prognostic impact of VCK vs CK, as well as individual cytogenetic abnormalities and TP53 mutation (TP53mut) status within the CK and VCK subgroups in pts with MDS treated with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) has not been well studied. Hence, we analyzed these questions in a large cohort of HMA-treated MDS pts in the icMDS VALIDATE database. Methods The icMDS VALIDATE database contains MDS pts treated with frontline HMA monotherapy or HMA-based combinations from 22 specialized international centers. Pts with unknown HMA type, date of HMA initiation, missing age, missing sex, missing cytogenetic data, bone marrow or peripheral blood blasts ≥20%, or missing survival status were excluded. We performed time-to-event analyses using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared groups by the log-rank test. We measured overall survival (OS) from time of HMA initiation. VALIDATE protocol was exempted, acknowledged, or approved by all centers' IRBs. VALIDATE is supported by an independent grant from Abbvie. Results A total of 1940 pts were included. Median age was 70 (range: 18-99) years and 66% were men. According to IPSS-R cytogenetic risk groups, 1.9% (37) were very good, 43.4% (841) good, 15.5% (301) intermediate, 11.6% (226) poor, and 27.6% (535) very poor. By HMA type, 71% of pts were treated with azacitidine, 14% with decitabine, 6% with HMA and venetoclax, and 9% with another HMA combination. Approximately 28% of pts underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT). The IPSS-R cytogenetic risk groups had different OS (p<0.001)with median OS (mOS; months [mo], 95% CI) as follows: very good (43.4, 34.7-72.5), good (41.7, 36.4-46.8), intermediate (24.5, 23.1-32.4), poor (24.2, 19.2-28.5), and very poor (13.6, 12.5-14.5). The difference remained significant (p=0.001) after censoring at time of alloHSCT with mOS as follows: very good (40.4, 23.2-64.3), good (24.3, 22.2-26.3), intermediate (19.3, 15.1-22.2), poor (12.2, 10.3-14.8), and very poor (9.1, 8.2-19.7). Interestingly, the difference between mOS for intermediate and poor risk cytogenetics became more apparent after censoring at time of alloHSCT. Next, we compared the outcomes of pts with CK and VCK to non-complex karyotype (NCK) MDS. The mOS for pts with VCK MDS (13.6 mo, 12.5-14.5) was worse compared to pts with CK (19.9 mo, 19.9-16.8; p=0.004) and NCK (36.1 mo, 32.7-37.8; p<0.001) MDS. Among the 1458 pts with available molecular data, more pts with VCK (75%, 330) MDS had a concurrent TP53mut compared to pts with CK (40%, 21; p<0.001) and NCK (7%, 64 p<0.001) MDS. Considering only patients with TP53mut MDS, mOS for pts with VCK (12.2, 11.1-13.9) was worse compared with NCK (24.2, 16-1-53.1; p<0.001) but not with CK (19.9, 9.5-NR; p=0.9); the difference between CK and NCK was not significant (p=0.16). Among pts with TP53 wildtype (TP53WT) MDS, VCK (15.0, 13.2-18.2) had a similar mOS to TP53WT CK (18.8, 12.6-41.1; p=0.19) while both groups had worse mOS compared to TP53WT NCK (33.4, 30.1-37.0) (p=0.01). In a survival analysis of 616 pts with MDS with ≥3 cytogenetic abnormalities, -17/del(17p) (12.8 mo; p=0.009), inv(3)/t(3q)/del(3q) (10.9 mo; p=0.006), and del(7q) (12.1mo; p=0.024), though not -7 (12.6mo; p=0.23), were associated with lower mOS compared to the pts with MDS without these abnormalities (14.3mo). Conclusions Using one of the largest databases of HMA-treated MDS pts, we show that IPSS-R cytogenetic risk categories associate with significantly different survivals among HMA-treated MDS pts, even after censoring at time of alloHSCT. Importantly, VCK MDS was associated with worse mOS compared to CK and NCK MDS but not in pts with a concurrent TP53mut. Among pts with MDS with ≥3 chromosomal abnormalities, having -17/del(17p), inv(3)/t(3q)/del(3q), or del(7q) was associated with worse survival.

Introduction: Response assessment is used to evaluate effectiveness of hypomethylating agent (HMA)-based therapy in myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) in clinical practice and trials. Recently, the clinical response criteria (IWG 2023) and the clinical-molecular risk assessment (IPSS-M) in MDS were published. However, it remains unknown whether the IWG 2023 response criteria have an independent impact on overall survival (OS) when adjusting for baseline IPSS-M risk. Additionally, the association of IWG 2023 response criteria with OS in patients (pts) undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) versus those who do not is unknown. Lastly, it is unclear if optimal time-to-transplant impacts OS in MDS pts who achieve a IWG 2023 defined remission with HMA therapy. We examined these questions in a large population of MDS pts within the multi-institutional international consortium for MDS (icMDS) VALIDATE database. Methods: High-risk MDS pts with IPSS ≥1.5 or IPSS-R >3.5 treated with HMA-based therapy were included in the study. Baseline IPSS-M risk was stratified into very low/low/moderate low (VL+L+ML), moderate-high/high (MH+H), and very high (VH). Response to treatment was evaluated using the IWG 2023 criteria and grouped into: composite complete response (cCR) and no cCR. cCR included: complete response (CR), CR equivalent (CRequ), CR bilineage (CRbi), CR unilineage (CRuni), and CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh). We analyzed the differential impact of achieving cCR on HMA-based therapy prior to transplant on OS in pts who either did or did not undergo allo-HCT, while adjusting for their baseline IPSS-M risk in Cox regression analysis. Optimal time-to-transplant was determined based on age and IPSS-M category as described by Tentori et al. (JCO 2024). Pts proceeding to allo-HCT were stratified on whether they underwent transplant within the optimal time-to-transplant timeframe after MDS diagnosis or not. VALIDATE protocol was exempted, acknowledged, or approved by all centers' IRBs. VALIDATE is supported by an independent grant from AbbVie. Results: We analyzed 762 MDS pts. The median age at MDS diagnosis was 68 years (range: 19-95 years) and 64% of pts were male. Distribution of the baseline IPSS-M risk was: VL+L+ML in 110 (14%) pts, MH+H in 347 (46%) pts, VH in 305 (40%) pts. Pts received azacitidine monotherapy, decitabine monotherapy, and HMA-based combination therapy (e.g. HMA + venetoclax) in 52%, 21%, and 28% of cases, respectively. A total of 282/762 (37%) pts achieved cCR as their best response to HMA-based therapy. The median OS for all pts was 18.7 months (95% CI: 16.6-21.3 months). Pts who did not undergo allo-HCT (n=436, 57%) had an improved median OS if they achieved cCR when compared to pts in the no cCR group in all IPSS-M risk groups (VL+L+ML: 23.5 months vs. 10.7 months; MH+H: 20.8 months vs. 11.6 months; VH: 13.8 months vs. 7.5 months). Cox analysis demonstrated an independent effect of cCR on OS in these pts when adjusted for baseline IPSS-M risk (cCR vs. no cCR: HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48-0.76, p<0.001). In contrast, in pts who subsequently received an allo-HCT (n=326, 43%), achieving cCR with HMA prior to allo-HCT did not provide an additional OS benefit, when adjusted for baseline IPSS-M risk (cCR vs. no cCR: HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73-1.38, p=0.986). The median time-to-transplant was 6.7 months and 34% of transplanted MDS pts received their allo-HCT during the optimal timeframe. Among pts who achieved cCR with HMA-based therapy prior to allo-HCT, optimal time-to-transplant was associated with significantly improved OS (optimal vs. non-optimal timing: HR 0.55; p=0.033). Conclusion: Baseline IPSS-M risk and allo-HCT had an independent impact on OS, while IWG 2023 defined cCR had an independent effect on OS only in non-transplanted MDS pts. While this retrospective analysis occurred at large academic centers with specific expertise in the management of MDS, our data may have an impact on clinical practice: (i) failure to achieve cCR on HMA therapy prior to transplant should not impact the decision to proceed to allo-HCT, (ii) upfront allo-HCT without prior HMA therapy might also be an option if the clinical situation and availability of donors allow, and (iii) allo-HCT should ideally be performed during the timeframe that is considered optimal as defined by pt age and baseline IPSS-M.

The NCCN Guidelines for Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) provide recommendations for the evaluation, diagnosis, and management of patients with MDS based on a review of clinical evidence that has led to important advances in treatment or has yielded new information on biologic factors that may have prognostic significance in MDS. The multidisciplinary panel of MDS experts meets on an annual basis to update the recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on some of the updates for the 2022 version of the NCCN Guidelines, which include treatment recommendations both for lower-risk and higher-risk MDS, emerging therapies, supportive care recommendations, and genetic familial high-risk assessment for hereditary myeloid malignancy predisposition syndromes.