Buckstein, Rena

Abstract Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are clinically and biologically diverse disorders, emphasizing the need for personalized treatment approaches. The International Working Group for Prognostication of MDS (IWG_PM) recently introduced a molecular classification, referred to as the MDS taxonomy, that categorizes patients into 16 subgroups based on 21 gene mutations, 6 cytogenetic abnormalities, and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at TP53 and TET2 loci. This study sought to validate and enhance the clinical relevance of the MDS taxonomy by analyzing a large retrospective cohort ( n = 5136) and transcriptomic data from a prospective cohort ( n = 477). The taxonomy successfully identified subgroups with distinct clinical characteristics and disease progression patterns. However, incorporating gene interactions from taxonomy subgroups did not improve the prognostic performance of the Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS‐M). We further assessed whether the taxonomy could guide management in patients receiving disease‐modifying therapies. Except for the “ TP53 ‐complex” subgroup, taxonomy classifications were not predictive of hypomethylating agent response or transplant outcomes. Nonetheless, they correlated with overall survival, suggesting that while both IPSS‐M and the taxonomy capture disease biology, other non‐genetic factors may influence treatment response. RNA sequencing confirmed the biological distinctiveness of the taxonomy groups. Transcriptomic profiling of CD34+ bone marrow cells revealed unique, homogeneous gene expression patterns, particularly within the AML‐like, bi TET2 , SF3B1 , and TP53 ‐complex subgroups. Further integration of multi‐omics data may refine MDS classification, improving clinical decision‐making and guiding the development of targeted therapies.

Abstract Introduction: Standardized reporting of clinical trials results for MDS is essential to improve clinical interpretation and cross-study comparison. However, reporting of patient characteristics, response criteria, and endpoints in publications is often inconsistent; there is no systemic analysis of MDS trial reporting available. We conducted a systematic review of published MDS trial manuscripts on behalf of the international consortium for MDS (icMDS) to assess variability in reporting practices. Methods We searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify all clinical trials registered for adults (≥18 years) with MDS that reported results between 2015-2024. Clinical trials that included acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) were included if they enrolled ≥5 MDS patients. We excluded trials without an MDS cohort; non-therapeutic trials; trials focused on transplant interventions; or those which enrolled solid malignancies or other hematologic malignancies (chronic myeloid leukemia or lymphoid diseases). Finally, trials were required to have a manuscript available on Larvol, PubMed, or Google Scholar. Trials were categorized by disease risk (lower-risk [LR] vs. higher-risk [HR]) and trial phase (early phase [EP] vs. late phase [LP]). Results We identified 502 MDS trials on ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 351 did not meet inclusion criteria and 79 lacked a manuscript. A total of 72 trials (32 EP, 40 LP) with 80 publications (34 EP, 46 LP) were analyzed. Frequently reported baseline characteristics included age (100% EP, 100% LP), disease risk (74% EP, 74% LP), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (85% EP, 72% LP), prior treatments (71% EP, 67% LP), and RBC transfusion dependency (32% EP, 70% LP). Less frequently reported characteristics included blood counts (hemoglobin [Hb; 38% EP, 54% LP], platelet count [38% EP, 54% LP], neutrophil count [24% EP and LP]) and bone marrow blasts (29% EP, 43% LP). Although disease risk was widely reported, definitions varied: IPSS and IPSS-R were each reported in 54% of manuscripts, while IPSS-M appeared in only 3%. Cytogenetic risk was separately reported in 39% of manuscripts (38% EP, 39% LP), and mutational data in 45% (47% EP, 43% LP). Responses per IWG 2006 criteria were reported in 84% of manuscripts. The primary endpoint involved safety/tolerability in 85% of EP manuscripts, though definitions were variable; recommended phase 2 dose was the most common (26% of EP manuscripts). In LP trials, primary endpoints were risk-specific: transfusion independence (TI) in 77% of LR, overall response rate (ORR) in 28% of HR, and complete remission (CR) or overall survival (OS) in 22% of HR. In HR manuscripts, CR was reported in 100%, ORR in 73%, hematologic improvement (HI) in 48%, RBC-TI in 23%, and OS in 80%. However, seven different definitions were used for ORR: CR + marrow CR + partial remission + HI per IWG 2006 was most common (35%). Event-free survival was reported in 25%; progression-free survival and relapse-free survival in 13%; and leukemia-free survival in 5%. Early mortality rate was reported in 35% (18% EP, 56% LP) and transplant rate in 58% (50% EP, 67% LP). Only 47% of HR and 90% of LR manuscripts identified HI-eligible patients. In LR-MDS, RBC-TI was reported in 72% of manuscripts but used six definitions. The most common were RBC-TI ≥8 weeks at any time during treatment (24%), ≥8 weeks within 28 weeks of treatment (13%), ≥8 weeks with Hb increase ≥1.0 (4%), ≥12 weeks with Hb increase ≥1.5 (4%), and ≥16 weeks within 24 weeks of treatment (12%). The remainder did not report RBC-TI, did not define it, or used a custom definition not used in another trial. HI was reported in 80% of LR papers with most of those reporting HI using IWG 2006 criteria (90%). Conclusion Reporting of baseline characteristics, response criteria, and outcomes is inconsistent in MDS clinical trials, with wide variability in response definitions, including ORR and TI. This heterogeneity limits interpretability, hampers historical comparisons and may obscure efficacy signals. Our findings highlight the need for standardized reporting guidelines to ensure clarity and consistency in MDS trial publications. As a next phase of this effort, we will conduct a formal Delphi process among icMDS experts to establish consensus recommendations for minimal and optimal MDS clinical trial reporting in manuscripts by disease risk (LR/HR) and trial phase (EP/LP).

Abstract Excessively restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria in clinical trials are one of many barriers to clinical trial enrollment for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDSs). Many organizations are developing efforts to increase clinical trial eligibility; yet, several recent publications focused on patients with MDS suggest that many patients with this disease may be excluded from clinical trials unnecessarily. Clinical trial eligibility should reflect the phase of the study and risks of the agent being studied. Phase 3 trials should be less restrictive than early-phase trials to represent the real-world population as closely as possible. We hypothesize that many clinical trials, particularly phase 3 trials, have unnecessarily restrictive eligibility criteria. This study aims to evaluate the most common eligibility criteria according to phase of trial and to determine whether criteria correspond with drug safety signals. We identified MDS clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 January 2000 to 1 September 2023 and analyzed the eligibility criteria of 191 therapeutic MDS trials. We found that categorical inclusion and exclusion criteria are remarkably similar in representation across trial phases. Additionally, only 13% of trials are concordant with drug safety signals, suggesting that the eligibility criteria are often arbitrary. On behalf of the icMDS (International Consortium for Myelodysplastic Syndromes), an association of international MDS experts, we provide a position statement on restrictive eligibility criteria for MDS clinical trials that should be avoided with the aim of removing barriers to clinical trial enrollment.

Abstract Myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDSs) are heterogeneous stem cell malignancies characterized by poor prognosis and no curative therapies outside of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Despite some recent approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration, (eg, luspatercept, ivosidenib, decitabine/cedazuridine, and imetelstat), there has been little progress in the development of truly transformative therapies for the treatment of patients with MDS. Challenges to advancing drug development in MDS are multifold but may be grouped into specific categories, including criteria for risk stratification and eligibility, response definitions, time-to-event end points, transfusion end points, functional assessments, and biomarker development. Strategies to address these challenges and optimize future clinical trial design for patients with MDS are presented here.

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.