Natu, Anuya

Introduction Oligomonocytic chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (OM-CMML) is defined by relative monocytosis ≥ 10% and an absolute monocyte count (AMC) between ≥ 0.5 and < 1.0 x109/L. The 5th ed WHO and International Consensus Classifications lowered the AMC threshold to ≥ 0.5 x10/9L for CMML diagnosis, thereby incorporating OM-CMML (Khoury, 2022; Arber, 2022). However, prior reports differ as to whether OM-CMML is a distinct CMML subtype. This multi-center study compares the clinical, molecular, and survival features of OM-CMML with myelodysplastic (MD, WBC < 13.0 x109/L) and myeloproliferative (MP, WBC ≥ 13.0 x109/L) CMML with an AMC ≥1.0. Methods After IRB approval, patients with CMML from Mayo Clinic (n = 400, 47%) and MD Anderson Cancer Center (n = 449, 53%) were identified retrospectively. Analyses considered clinical, laboratory, and next generation sequencing parameters at diagnosis or first referral (in chronic phase). Categorical variables were compared by Fisher exact or Pearson χ2 tests and continuous variables by Mann-Whitney U or ANOVA tests. Survival was assessed via the Kaplan-Meier method with outcomes censored at allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT). P < 0.05 was considered significant. Calculations used BlueSky Statistics (v10.3.1). Results A molecularly annotated cohort of 849 patients with CMML (median age 71 years, 32% female, 90% white, median follow up 31 months [mo]) was categorized as OM-CMML (n = 57, 7%), MD-CMML (n = 394, 46%), and MP-CMML (n = 391, 46%). There were no differences in age or sex across subtypes. No clinical differences were observed between OM-CMML and MD-CMML, with similar hematologic parameters, karyotype distributions, Mayo-Molecular (Patnaik, 2014) or CPSS-Molecular (Elena, 2016) risk stratifications, and rates of leukemic transformation (12% vs 12%, p = 0.98) and death (35% vs 43%, p = 0.27). Cases of OM-CMML had lower WBC counts (median 4.4 vs 24.7 x109/L, p < 0.0001), fewer circulating immature myeloid cells (23% vs 57%, p < 0.0001) and fewer marrow blasts (median 3% vs 4%, p = 0.0065) than MP-CMML. Comparatively, OM-CMML cases were overrepresented in the lower-risk groups of the CPSS-Molecular and Mayo-Molecular models (p < 0.0001). Leukemic transformation (12% vs 20%, p = 0.015) and death (35% vs 52%, p = 0.034) rates were higher in the MP-CMML cohort. Molecular profiles were similar between OM-CMML and MD-CMML, including median number of genes mutated (3 vs 3, p = 0.88). Frequencies of ASXL1 (39% vs 38%, p = 0.91), SRSF2 (48% vs 43%, p = 0.49), DNMT3A (7% vs 5%, p = 0.60), and SF3B1 (4% vs 7%, p = 0.48) mutations were also similar. TET2 mutation frequency was higher in OM-CMML (70% vs 55%, p = 0.031) and occurred in isolation more frequently (12% vs 6%, p = 0.048) compared to MD-CMML. Neither median number of TET2 mutations (1 vs 2, p = 0.87), nor TET2 variant allele fractions (41% vs 44%, p = 0.19) were different between the two groups. Compared to OM-CMML, patients with MP-CMML were more likely to have mutations in ASXL1 (39% vs 56%, p = 0.017), EZH2 (0% vs 9%, p = 0.019), JAK2 (0% vs 9%, p = 0.019), NRAS (7% vs 25%, p = 0.0024), and SETBP1 (2% vs 13%, p = 0.021). RAS family (CBL, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, PTPN11; 25% vs 54%, p < 0.0001) and signaling pathway (CSF3R, FLT3, JAK2, SH2B3; 2% vs 14%, p = 0.0078) mutations were also more frequent whereas spliceosome mutations (SF3B1, SRSF2, U2AF1, ZRSR2; 61% vs 46%, p = 0.033) were less frequent in MP-CMML. The median (95% CI) overall survival (OS) of OM-CMML patients was 44 (38 - not reached) mo compared to 45 (34 - 60) mo in MD-CMML (p = 0.76) and 23 (20 - 29) mo in MP-CMML (p < 0.0032). Similar results were obtained when comparing the acute leukemia-free survival (LFS) of the OM-CMML (41 mo), MD-CMML (39 mo), and MP-CMML (19 mo) groups. At last follow up (medians 42 and 62 mo, respectively), 33% of evaluable OM-CMML patients had progressed to MD-CMML and 28% of MD-CMML patients had progressed to MP-CMML. No patient with OM-CMML progressed directly to MP-CMML. Conclusions These data show that OM-CMML and MD-CMML are a relatively homogenous subset of patients with similar clinicomolecular profiles and survival outcomes. Although OM-CMML patients are more likely to have TET2 mutations in comparison to other CMML subtypes, they have similar rates of disease progression as MD-CMML. This validates recent modifications to CMML classification criteria, in which OM-CMML cases are included as bona fide CMML.

AbstractThe current study was inspired by observations from exploratory analyses of an institutional cohort with chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML; N = 398) that revealed no instances of blast transformation in the seven patients with plant homeodomain finger protein 6 (PHF6) mutation (PHF6MUT). A subsequent Mayo Clinic enterprise‐wide database search identified 28 more cases with PHF6MUT. Compared with their wild‐type PHF6 counterparts (PHF6WT; N = 391), PHF6MUT cases (N = 35) were more likely to co‐express TET2 (89% vs. 45%; p < .01), RUNX1 (29% vs. 14%; p = .03), CBL (14% vs. 2%; p < .01), and U2AF1 (17% vs. 6%; p = .04) and less likely SRSF2 (23% vs. 45%; p < .01) mutation. They were also more likely to display loss of Y chromosome (LoY; 21% vs. 2%; p < .01) and platelets <100 × 109/L (83% vs. 51%; p < .01). Multivariable analysis identified PHF6MUT (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15–0.50) and DNMT3AMUT (HR 5.8, 95% CI 3.3–10.5) as the strongest molecular predictors of overall survival. The same was true for blast transformation‐free survival with corresponding HR (95% CI) of 0.08 (0.01–0.6) and 9.5 (3.8–23.5). At median 20 months follow‐up, blast transformation was documented in none of the 33 patients with PHF6MUT/DNMT3AWT but in 6 (32%) of 19 with DNMT3AMUT and 74 (20%) of 374 with PHF6WT/DNMT3AWT (p < .01). The specific molecular signatures sustained their significant predictive performance in the context of the CMML‐specific molecular prognostic model (CPSS‐mol). PHF6MUT identifies a unique subset of patients with CMML characterized by thrombocytopenia, higher prevalence of LoY, and superior prognosis.