Sekeres, Mikkael A.

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.

Abstract Myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) are a collection of hematopoietic disorders with widely variable prognoses and treatment options. Accurate pathologic diagnoses present challenges because of interobserver variability in interpreting morphology and quantifying dysplasia. We compared local clinical site diagnoses with central, adjudicated review from 918 participants enrolled in the ongoing National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute National MDS Natural History Study, a prospective observational cohort study of participants with suspected MDS or MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). Locally, 264 (29%) were diagnosed as having MDS, 15 (2%) MDS/MPN overlap, 62 (7%) idiopathic cytopenia of undetermined significance (ICUS), 0 (0%) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with <30% blasts, and 577 (63%) as other. Approximately one-third of cases were reclassified after central review, with 266 (29%) diagnosed as MDS, 45 (5%) MDS/MPN overlap, 49 (5%) ICUS, 15 (2%) AML with <30%, and 543 (59%) as other. Site miscoding errors accounted for more than half (53%) of the local misdiagnoses, leaving a true misdiagnosis rate of 15% overall, 21% for MDS. Therapies were reported in 37% of patients, including 43% of patients with MDS, 49% of patients with MDS/MPN, and 86% of patients with AML with <30% blasts. Treatment rates were lower (25%) in cases with true discordance in diagnosis compared with those for whom local and central diagnoses agreed (40%), and receipt of inappropriate therapy occurred in 7% of misdiagnosed cases. Discordant diagnoses were frequent, which has implications for the accuracy of study-related and national registries and can lead to inappropriate therapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT05074550.

Abstract Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and vulnerability are variably affected in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and other cytopenic states; however, the heterogeneity of these diseases has limited our understanding of these domains. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored MDS Natural History Study is a prospective cohort enrolling patients undergoing workup for suspected MDS in the setting of cytopenias. Untreated patients undergo bone marrow assessment with central histopathology review for assignment as MDS, MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN), idiopathic cytopenia of undetermined significance (ICUS), acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with <30% blasts, or “At-Risk.” HRQoL data are collected at enrollment, including the MDS-specific Quality of Life in Myelodysplasia Scale (QUALMS). Vulnerability is assessed with the Vulnerable Elders Survey. Baseline HRQoL scores from 449 patients with MDS, MDS/MPN, AML <30%, ICUS or At-Risk were similar among diagnoses. In MDS, HRQoL was worse for vulnerable participants (eg, mean Patent-Reported Outcomes Management Information Systems [PROMIS] Fatigue of 56.0 vs 49.5; P < .001) and those with worse prognosis (eg, mean Euroqol-5 Dimension-5 Level [EQ-5D-5L] of 73.4, 72.7, and 64.1 for low, intermediate, and high-risk disease; P = .005). Among vulnerable MDS participants, most had difficulty with prolonged physical activity (88%), such as walking a quarter mile (74%). These data suggest that cytopenias leading to MDS evaluation are associated with similar HRQoL, regardless of eventual diagnosis, but with worse HRQoL among the vulnerable. Among those with MDS, lower-risk disease was associated with better HRQoL, but the relationship was lost among the vulnerable, showing for the first time that vulnerability trumps disease risk in affecting HRQoL. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02775383.

Abstract Background: Pts with HR-MDS unfit for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) have poor outcomes and limited survival with single-agent hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapy. Novel treatments that provide durable responses and clinically meaningful survival benefit for pts with HR-MDS are needed. TIM-3 is a promising target in myeloid malignancies as it regulates innate and adaptive immune cells and is expressed on leukemic stem cells (LSCs) and blasts but not normal hematopoietic stem cells. Sabatolimab (MBG453) is a novel immuno-myeloid therapy that binds to TIM-3 on immune cells, facilitating antileukemic immune activation and phagocytic killing of leukemic cells. Sabatolimab also binds to TIM-3 on leukemic cells, potentially impeding self-renewal of LSCs via inhibition of TIM3-galectin-9. In an early phase (ph) trial (NCT03066648) sabatolimab + HMA therapy showed a durable clinical benefit and was well tolerated in pts with HR-MDS (Wei, EHA 2021). Study Design and Methods: The STIMULUS immuno-myeloid clinical trial program is investigating the safety, efficacy, and durability of multiple sabatolimab-based combination therapies in pts with myeloid malignancies. Additional exploration of the mechanism of action of sabatolimab and identification of potential biomarkers predictive of response is planned. This abstract summarizes the design of the 4 ongoing STIMULUS trials in previously untreated adult pts with HR-MDS who are not eligible for intensive chemotherapy (IC) or HSCT. STIMULUS-MDS1 (NCT03946670) is an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Ph II trial evaluating sabatolimab + HMA therapy in pts with very-high, high-, or intermediate-risk (vH/H/IR)-MDS which has completed enrollment (N=127). The primary endpoints of STIMULUS-MDS1 are complete response (CR) and progression-free survival (PFS). STIMULUS-MDS2 (NCT04266301) is an ongoing, international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Ph III trial of sabatolimab + azacitidine (AZA) in pts with vH/H/IR-MDS or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia-2. Target enrollment is ~500 pts. The primary endpoint in this trial is overall survival (OS). Key secondary endpoints are time to definitive deterioration of fatigue; duration of RBC transfusion-free interval; and improvement of fatigue, physical functioning, and emotional functioning. Other endpoints include CR, marrow CR (mCR), partial remission (PR), PFS, and leukemia-free survival (LFS). STIMULUS-MDS2 is a trial that aims to determine if sabatolimab + HMA has a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in OS and quality of life vs HMA alone. STIMULUS MDS-US (NCT04878432) is a US-based, open-label, single-arm, Ph II trial investigating sabatolimab + HMAs of investigators' choice (AZA intravenous [IV] or subcutaneous, decitabine IV or oral decitabine) in pts with vH/H/IR-MDS. Target enrollment is 90 pts. Primary endpoint is safety, which will be evaluated via incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. Secondary endpoints include CR, PFS, LFS, and OS. This trial will provide further understanding of sabatolimab + HMA therapy with additional insight into the safety and efficacy of sabatolimab + oral HMA. STIMULUS-MDS3 (NCT04812548) is an international, open-label, single-arm, Ph II trial that explores triplet therapy of sabatolimab combined with AZA and the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (VEN) in pts with vH/HR-MDS. Part 1 of this trial is a safety run-in comprising 2 safety cohorts with ~6 pts receiving sabatolimab 400 mg + AZA + VEN and ~12 pts receiving sabatolimab 800 mg + AZA + VEN. Primary endpoint of part 1 is safety (dose-limiting toxicities between cycle 1 day 8 and end of cycle 2). If (both 400 and 800 mg) sabatolimab + AZA and VEN are safe, the trial will progress to an expansion cohort (~58 pts) of sabatolimab 800 mg Q4W + AZA + VEN. The primary endpoint is CR. Secondary endpoints include CR + mCR rate, overall response rate (CR + mCR + PR + hematologic improvement), OS, PFS, LFS, and event-free survival. The STIMULUS immuno-myeloid clinical trial program is investigating the efficacy, safety, and improved quality of life of multiple sabatolimab-based combination therapies in pts with myeloid malignancies. The goal of ongoing STIMULUS-MDS trials is to gain insight into the promising durable benefit of sabatolimab combination therapies in pts with HR-MDS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Zeidan: Jazz: Consultancy; Jasper: Consultancy; Pfizer: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Travel support, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Ionis: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Genentech: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Geron: Other: Clinical Trial Committees; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Research Funding; Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioCryst: Other: Clinical Trial Committees; BeyondSpring: Consultancy; Astex: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Aprea: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acceleron: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Research Funding. Al-Kali: Astex: Other: Research support to institution; Novartis: Research Funding. Borate: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicine: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rampal: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Galecto, Inc.: Consultancy; Promedior: Consultancy. Cluzeau: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Honoraria; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Takeda: Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. DeZern: Taiho: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Esteve: Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding. Giagounidis: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Platzbecker: Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Geron: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Sallman: Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Intellia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shattuck Labs: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Aprea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy. Santini: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sanz: Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, and expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, and expenses, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, and expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Helsinn Healthcare: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Sciences: Other: Travel, accommodations, and expenses. Sekeres: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wei: Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Van Hoef: Novartis Pharma: Current Employment. Nourry-Boulot: Novartis: Current Employment. Sadek: Novartis: Current Employment. Bengoudifa: Novartis Pharma AG: Current Employment. Sachs: Novartis Pharma AG: Current Employment. Sabo: Novartis: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. OffLabel Disclosure: Sabatolimab is a novel immuno-myeloid therapy targeting TIM-3 and is under investigation for the treatment of patients with myeloid malignancies

BackgroundAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is fatal in elderly patients who are unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival benefit of administering sapacitabine, an oral nucleoside analogue, in alternating cycles with decitabine, a low‐intensity therapy, to elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML.MethodsThis randomized, open‐label, phase 3 study (SEAMLESS) was conducted at 87 sites in 11 countries. Patients aged ≥70 years who were not candidates for or chose not to receive standard induction chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to arm A (decitabine in alternating cycles with sapacitabine) received 1‐hour intravenous infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 8 weeks (first cycle and subsequent odd cycles) and sapacitabine 300 mg twice daily on 3 consecutive days per week for 2 weeks every 8 weeks (second cycle and subsequent even cycles) or to control arm C who received 1‐hour infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks. Prior hypomethylating agent therapy for preexisting myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms was an exclusion criterion. Randomization was stratified by antecedent myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms, white blood cell count (<10 × 109/L and ≥10 × 109/L), and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs <50%). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were the rates of complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete platelet count recovery, partial remission, hematologic improvement, and stable disease along with the corresponding durations, transfusion requirements, number of hospitalized days, and 1‐year survival. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01303796).ResultsBetween October 2011 and December 2014, 482 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine (study arm, n = 241) or decitabine monotherapy (control arm, n = 241). The median OS was 5.9 months on the study arm versus 5.7 months on the control arm (P = .8902). The CR rate was 16.6% on the study arm and 10.8% on the control arm (P = .1468). In patients with white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L (n = 321), the median OS was higher on the study arm versus the control arm (8.0 vs 5.8 months; P = .145), as was the CR rate (21.5% vs 8.6%; P = .0017).ConclusionsThe regimen of decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine was active but did not significantly improve OS compared with decitabine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with baseline white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L might benefit from decitabine alternating with sapacitabine, with an improved CR rate and the convenience of an oral drug. These findings should be prospectively confirmed.

PURPOSE Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only potentially curative therapy for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), although it is infrequently offered to older patients. The relative benefits of HCT over non-HCT therapy in older patients with higher-risk MDS have not been defined. METHODS We conducted a multicenter biologic assignment trial comparing reduced-intensity HCT to hypomethylating therapy or best supportive care in subjects 50-75 years of age with intermediate-2 or high-risk de novo MDS. The primary outcome was overall survival probability at 3 years. Between January 2014 and November 2018, we enrolled 384 subjects at 34 centers. Subjects were assigned to the Donor or No-Donor arms according to the availability of a matched donor within 90 days of study registration. RESULTS The median follow-up time for surviving subjects was 34.2 months (range: 2.3-38 months) in the Donor arm and 26.9 months (range: 2.4-37.2 months) in the No-Donor arm. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the adjusted overall survival rate at 3 years in the Donor arm was 47.9% (95% CI, 41.3 to 54.1) compared with 26.6% (95% CI, 18.4 to 35.6) in the No-Donor arm ( P = .0001) with an absolute difference of 21.3% (95% CI, 10.2 to 31.8). Leukemia-free survival at 3 years was greater in the Donor arm (35.8%; 95% CI, 29.8 to 41.8) compared with the No-Donor arm (20.6%; 95% CI, 13.3 to 29.1; P = .003). The survival benefit was seen across all subgroups examined. CONCLUSION We observed a significant survival advantage in older subjects with higher-risk MDS who have a matched donor identified and underwent reduced-intensity HCT, when compared with those without a donor. HCT should be included as an integral part of MDS management plans in fit older adults with higher-risk MDS.