Feng, Amber

Abstract Background: Hypomethylating agent (HMA) with venetoclax (VEN) is used in clinical practice for frontline management of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) based on encouraging data from phase 1 clinical trial (Garcia JS et al. Blood 2025). While the randomized clinical trial (VERONA-NCT04401748) did not show a survival benefit of azacitidine-VEN, the study had important differences such as exclusion of therapy related MDS and being conducted in several non-academic US centers. To better understand the impact of this regimen and its effects in subgroups, we conducted a real-world analysis of frontline MDS patients treated mainly at academic medical centers with HMA-VEN and compared to HMA monotherapy. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study of 19 US academic medical centers. We included contemporary cohorts of adults (age≥18 years) with MDS (intermediate, high or very high risk by IPSS-R) who were treated outside of clinical trials with either upfront combination of HMA-VEN or HMA monotherapy. Data on patient-related, disease-related and treatment-related variables were collected through chart review. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics. Overall survival (OS) and event free survival (EFS: progression, leukemic transformation, death as events) analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier method. Determinants of outcomes were analyzed using multivariable regression models. All analyses were conducted at a significance level of p<0.05. Results: Among 1198 patients with intermediate, high or very-high risk MDS, 313 patients received upfront VEN in combination with HMA [HMA-VEN] and 885 patients received HMA monotherapy. Median age was 70 (63-76) years and majority of patients had MDS with excess blasts-1 (34% overall, HMA-VEN=26%, HMA=37%) or MDS with excess-blasts-2 (41% overall, HMA-VEN=60%, HMA=34%). Disease risk by IPSS-R was intermediate (29% overall, HMA-VEN=18%, HMA=33%), high (30% overall, HMA-VEN=31%, HMA=30%) or very-high risk (41% overall, HMA-VEN=51%, HMA=37%, p<0.001). Therapy related MDS (t-MDS) was seen in 27% of patients (HMA-VEN=33%, HMA=25%, p=0.004), 34% had TP53 mutation (HMA-VEN=40%, HMA=32%, p=0.005) and 33% underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) (HMA-VEN=42%, HMA=30%, p<0.001). The most common mutations detected at baseline included TP53 (34%), ASXL1 (22%), DNMT3A (16%), RUNX1 (16%), TET2 (14%), SRSF2 (13%), and U2AF1 (11%). The response rate by IWG 2006 criteria was significantly higher with HMA-VEN than HMA monotherapy (overall 81% vs 39%, CR: 17% vs 9.6%; marrow CR: 56% vs 14%, p<0.001). In multivariable analysis accounting for upfront treatment, AHSCT, genomic mutations, baseline bone marrow blasts and t-MDS, patients treated with HMA-VEN in the upfront setting had significantly improved EFS (median EFS 10.7 vs. 7.8 mon, HR 0.83, 95%CI 0.72-0.96, p=0.01) and OS (median OS 22.4 vs. 18.1 mon, HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.64-0.97, p=0.02). In addition, TP53 mutation status (OS: HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.57-2.26, p<0.001, EFS: HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.23-1.65, p<0.001), subsequent AHSCT (OS: HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.27-0.41, p<0.001; EFS: HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.40-0.54, p<0.001), and therapy related MDS (OS: HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00-1.44, p=0.04, EFS: HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.96-1.27, p=0.2) were significant predictors on multivariable analysis. When separately investigated in subgroups, an OS benefit of HMA-VEN over HMA was seen in patients undergoing subsequent AHSCT (median OS 40.6 vs. 30 mon, p=0.05), bone marrow blast 10-19% (median OS 25.1 vs. 17.4 mon, P=0.01), de novo MDS (median OS 30 vs. 20.1 mon, P=0.003) and absence of TP53 mutation (median OS 34.9 mon vs. 23.1 mon, p=0.004). The benefit of HMA-VEN over HMA was also seen across molecular mutations including presence of ASXL1 mutation (median OS 35.2 vs 20.9 mon, p=0.03). Conclusions: In this large multicenter retrospective analysis from US academic medical centers, we found that HMA-VEN therapy significantly improved OS in certain subsets of high risk MDS including patients with 10-19% blasts, denovo MDS, subsequent AHSCT and those without TP53 mutation. While our analysis is limited by its retrospective design, prospectively exploring subgroups of MDS patients who could benefit from HMA-VEN therapy is needed.

Abstract Introduction: T-PLL is a rare, aggressive leukemia with poor prognosis and limited therapies. Previous studies on T-PLL patients receiving an allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) are limited by small numbers with limited data on disease and transplant characteristics. Further, recent data from our large national cohort of patients demonstrated significant survival difference between TCL1A+ and TCL1A- T-PLL, and CD8+ T-PLL vs CD8- T-PLL. In this large multi-center series, utilizing comprehensive disease subtype and alloSCT clinical data, we evaluated prognostic and survival therapeutic outcomes in T-PLL patients that had an alloSCT with a particular focus on T-PLL disease subtypes. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 572 diagnosed with T-PLL at 21 academic cancer centers throughout the USA between 2000-2023, of which we performed a further evaluation on the169 that proceeded with alloSCT. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Among n=169 alloSCT recipients with T-PLL, the median follow-up time was 20.9 months post-alloSCT (range: 0.2-182.9), the median age at transplant was 59 years (range: 35-77) and 52% were male. In evaluated patients (n=109), TCL1A was positive by cytogenetics or FISH in 69%. As our recent analysis demonstrated significant differences in survival among specific subtypes of T-PLL, we evaluated outcomes in patients with CD4+CD8- T-PLL (n=90, 53%), CD4-CD8+ (n=17, 10%) T-PLL, and CD4+CD8+ T-PLL (n=52, 31%). 53% (87/164) had known nodal involvement at diagnosis identified by PET or CT scan and 45% (43/96) of known patients had minimal residual disease (MRD) at the time of transplant [defined as <5% T-PLL in marrow by flow, or +cytogenetics (e.g. TCL1A)] prior to alloSCT. At the time of alloSCT, 136 (80%) patients were in CR and 23 (14%) patients were in PR. Forty-nine (30%) had a myeloablative (MAC)conditioning regimen and 114 (70%) had a reduced intensity chemotherapy (RIC) conditioning regimen. Eighty (49%) patients had TBI as part of their regimen. The most common regimens were fludarabine (flu)/melphalan based regimens (n=44; 26.0%), flu/cyclophosphamide (cy) based regimens (n=33; 19.5%), flu/busulfan based regimens (n=22; 13.0%), flu/total body irradiation (TBI) (n=8; 4.7%), and cy/TBI (n=4; 2.4%). Across the whole cohort, the median OS and PFS post-alloSCT was 32.6 months (95% CI: 21.0-41.9) and 20.8 months (95% CI: 14.4-30.5) months while the 1-year cumulative incidences (CI) of NRM and relapse were 17% and 20%, respectively. The incidences of grade II-IV acute GVHD and cGVHD were 19% and 23%. There was no difference between patients with myeloablative conditioning (MAC) (n=49, 29%) when compared to patients that received reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) (n=114, 67%) in OS (33.1 vs 29.2; p=0.68) and PFS (20.2 vs 20.8; p=0.97). Patients that were MRD+ (n=31) had worse OS (22.2 vs 48.6; p=0.1) and PFS (14.1 vs 32.5; p=0.04) and higher rates of relapse (1-year relapse 20% vs 8%; p=0.08) than patients that were MRD- (n=50). PFS was improved in those who received alloSCT though only trended towards significance due to low numbers (HR 0.76, p=0.09). In subtype analysis, TCL1A+ T-PLL had significantly worse outcomes compared to TCL1A negative T-PLL. TCL1A+ disease had significantly worse OS (21.6 vs 63.1; p=0.01) and PFS (12.4 vs 50.7; p=0.01) compared to TCL1A-. Additionally, in TCL1A+ disease CI of NRM (24% vs 3%; p=0.02) and relapse (25% vs 12%; p=0.86) was higher vs TCL1A- PLL. CD4+CD8-, CD4-CD8+, and CD4+CD8+ disease had no difference in survival via either OS (28.0 vs 34.4 vs 21.0; p=0.17) or PFS (29.4 vs 23.5 vs 13.6; p=0.09) as well as no difference 1-year CI of NRM ( 11.6 vs 23.5 vs 26.2; p=0.35) and relapse (18.5 vs 23.5 vs 20.0; p=0.67).Conclusions: AlloSCT significantly improved outcomes for patients with T-PLL compared to those who did not proceed to alloSCT and remains he only curative therapy for those with T-PLL. OS, PFS, and CI relapse were significantly worse for patients with TCL1A+ subtype of T-PLL, or those with MRD positivity or PR prior to alloSCT. Novel strategies to decrease relapse such as post-alloSCT maintenance therapy to improve outcomes are urgently needed in these patients.

Background: Hypomethylating agents (HMA) with venetoclax (VEN) have shown encouraging clinical efficacy in single arm clinical trials for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (Garcia JS et al. ASH 2023, Zeidan AM et al. Am J Hematol. 2023). Many centers have started utilizing HMA-VEN in the clinical management of MDS due to unmet need, pending results of the ongoing phase 3 randomized clinical trial (VERONA) using this combination. However, real world studies with large sample size investigating the use of these agents in MDS, practice patterns and clinical outcomes are lacking. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study of 13 US academic medical centers. We included contemporary cohorts of adults (age≥18 years) with MDS who were treated with upfront combination of HMA-VEN, upfront HMA monotherapy, or VEN added after inadequate response or progression on HMA (post-HMA failure VEN). Outcomes analyzed includes clinical response, adverse events (AE) of interest, dose administration and survival. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics. Overall survival and event free survival (EFS: progression, leukemic transformation, death as events) analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier method. Determinants of outcomes were analyzed using multivariable regression models. All analyses were conducted at a significance level of p<0.05. Results: Among 454 patients included, 258 patients received VEN in combination with HMA [upfront HMA-VEN (n=175), post-HMA failure VEN (n=83)] and 196 patients received HMA monotherapy. Median age was 69 (59-77) years and majority of patients had MDS with excess blasts (75%), high risk (31.9%) or very-high (41.8%) risk disease by IPSS-R, 23.7% had therapy related disease, 33% had deletion17p or TP53 mutation and 40.9% underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation. VEN was predominantly started in outpatient setting (78.6%) with tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis and VEN doses ranged from 70-400mg, adjusted for concomitant antifungal drugs. Incidence of TLS was minimal (No TLS- 92.9%, lab-only TLS 6.2%, 1 pt with clinical TLS). Neutropenic fever was the main AE noted [upfront VEN-HMA (34.2%), HMA monotherapy (22.5%), post-HMA VEN (44.5%)]. In the upfront setting, response rate was significantly higher with HMA-VEN than HMA monotherapy (CR: 33% vs 12%; marrow CR: 40% vs 27%, p<.001). VEN given in the post HMA failure setting also resulted in encouraging response rates (CR 10%, marrow CR 32%). After adjusting for covariates in multivariable analysis, patients treated with HMA-VEN in the upfront setting had significantly improved event free survival as compared to HMA monotherapy (HR 0.59, HR 0.44-0.78, p<0.01), but overall survival did not reach statistical significance (overall survival HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.57-1.04, p=0.08). Conclusions: In this large multicenter retrospective analysis from US academic medical centers, we found that VEN in combination with HMA resulted in encouraging clinical outcomes and was effectively administered in the outpatient setting with minimal TLS. Infection risk management and supportive measures would be important to improve the ability to use this treatment widely, pending results of the ongoing phase 3 randomized clinical trial. Updated results with additional variables will be available at the main meeting.

Introduction: T-PLL is a rare, aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis and limited therapies. Outside of prospective trials utilizing alemtuzumab, data is derived primarily from small retrospective series, and limited data on survival outcomes and therapeutic efficacy, particularly beyond frontline therapy are available. In this large multi-center series, with comprehensive clinical data, we evaluated survival and therapeutic outcomes in T-PLL patients, with a focus on identification of prognostic subgroups of T-PLL, that will inform future investigations into the biology and treatment of this disease. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all patients diagnosed with T-PLL at 15 academic cancer centers throughout the USA between 2000-2023 using the recent TPLL-ISG staging and response criteria with overall response rate (ORR) defined as CR and PR. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and cox proportional hazard models. Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) was performed using the standard 10X Genomics platform. Results: 377 patients, with a median follow-up time of 29 months (range: 0-196) were evaluated. The median age at diagnosis was 64 and 51% were male. In evaluated patients (n=223), TCL1A was positive by cytogenetics or FISH in 82%. 61% of patients had CD4+CD8- T-PLL, 11% of patients had CD4-CD8+ T-PLL, and 24% of patients had CD4+CD8+ T-PLL, with 4% unknown. 175 patients (46.4%) had known nodal involvement at diagnosis identified by PET or CT scan. Among treated patients (n=342, 91%), using TPLL-ISG criteria, the ORR to any frontline treatment was 67% (49% CR, 18% PR). Median OS and PFS was 19 months and 10 months in responding patients from the start of treatment initiation. For those treated with frontline alemtuzumab (n=250), the ORR was 74% (58% CR), with a median OS and PFS of 18 and 12 months. 20 patients (5%) were treated with a combination of alemtuzumab/pentostatin frontline with an ORR of 85% (70% CR), which was superior to alemtuzumab alone (ORR 74%, 58% CR). Patients that had frontline chemotherapy (excluding pentostatin, n=48) had a worse ORR of 35% (15% CR) (p<0.001), and a worse PFS of 4 months (p=0.002), when compared to those who received alemtuzumab. Among patients in 1st CR/PR (n=226), 44% (n=99) received an allograft and had an improved 3-year OS of 50% vs 17%, (HR=0.67, 95%CI 0.48-0.93), and 50% improvement in PFS (HR 0.48, 0.33-0.68) compared to those who did not receive an allograft. For patients that received second line treatment (n=176, 52%), re-treatment with alemtuzumab (n=33) produced a 46% ORR (21% CR). Other active second-line treatments included: pentostatin (n=23; 44% ORR, 17% CR), ruxolitinib-based regimens (n=4; 25% ORR, 0% CR), venetoclax-based regimens (n=13; 39% ORR, 8% CR), bendamustine (n=10; 30% ORR, 0% CR), and nelarabine (n=4; 75% ORR, 50% CR). In subgroup survival analysis, TCL1A+ patients had a worse OS and PFS when compared to TCL1A- patients (23 months vs 43 months; p=0.02), and (14 months vs 24 months; p=0.02) respectively, with HR 1.58 (1.08, 2.31) (p=0.02) for OS and HR 1.62 (1.09-2.40) (p=0.02) for PFS. Furthermore, CD4- T-PLL had worse OS (16 months vs 25 months) when compared to CD4+ patients [HR 1.57 (1.08, 2.27), p=0.02]. Single cell RNA seq in 13 patients, including 3 TCL1A- patients, with a total of 66,269 T-PLL cells, demonstrated a unique RNA signature between the CD4+/- and TCL1A+/- patients, suggesting these represent unique molecular subtypes of T-PLL. Conclusions: In this large, multi-center study of T-PLL, frontline treatment with a combination of alemtuzumab/pentostatin improved response rates and OS. Further, among patients who attained a CR, allograft improved OS & PFS vs no allograft. In relapsed T-PLL, retreatment with alemtuzumab had a high ORR, and we report significant activity of multiple novel/alternative agents with the largest reported numbers to date. Intriguingly, TCL1A+, and CD4- T- PLL had worse OS/PFS, and scRNAseq confirmed unique molecular signatures in these populations, suggesting these represent novel molecular subtypes of T-PLL with prognostic significance. These studies form the foundation for future, targeted, therapeutic studies in this rare, aggressive disease with few treatment options.