Shukla, Asmita

Abstract Introduction: Despite advent of multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and newer treatment methods for AML and ALL, the outcomes of patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia in blast phase (CML-BP) remain poor. Consensus guidelines on treatment of CML-BP are scarce. A recent study from the European leukemia network blast phase registry on 240 pts reported marked heterogeneity in treatment patterns and lack of an accepted standard. Hence, we undertook this study through the H Jean Khoury Cure CML Consortium (HJKC3) to describe the treatment patterns and outcomes of pts with CML-BP in the US. Methods: This is a multi-institution, retrospective study. IRB approval was obtained at each institution and data sharing agreements were executed. All pts diagnosed with CML-BP based on modified MD Anderson Criteria (≥30% blasts in the blood or bone marrow or extramedullary (EM) disease) from 2010 to 2025 were included. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of diagnosis of CML BP to death from any cause. Event free survival (EFS) was calculated from date of best response to event (death or relapse). Results: Of the 283 pts with CML-BP, 96 (33.9%) were female and 187 (66.1%) were males. At the time of diagnosis, 183 (64.6%) had CML-CP, 21 (7.4%) pts had CML-AP and 79 (27.9%) pts had de-novo CML-BP. For the 204 pts that were initially diagnosed with CML-CP or CML-AP, the median time to progression to CML-BP was 22.5 months (1-207 months). Median age at diagnosis of CML-BP was 50 years (range 16-86 years). EM disease was present in 78 (27.6%) pts (38 myeloid sarcoma, 30 central nervous system and 10 skin). Blasts were of myeloid phenotype in 168 (59.4%), lymphoid in 103 (36.4%) and mixed in 9 (3.2%) pts. The bcr-abl protein was p210 in 229 (80.9%), p190 in 8 (2.8%) and p230 in 2 (0.7%) pts. ABL kinase domain mutation was seen in 42.1% (80/190) pts, with T315I being the most common (n=32), followed by E255K (n=16). Next generation sequencing was performed in 117 pts. The most common mutations were ASXL1 (n=27), RUNX1 (n=14), BCOR (n=4), DNMT3A (n=4) and BCORL1 (n=3). Of the 283 pts, 269 underwent CML-BP directed therapy. 63 (23.4%) pts were treated with TKI monotherapy, 184 (68.4%) pts were treated with a combination of chemotherapy (chemo) and TKI and 22 (8.2%) pts were treated with chemo alone. Response rate after CML-BP directed therapy was 75.3% (n=213). Best response was return to CML-CP in 49 pts, CHR with PCyR in 18 pts, CCyR in 31 pts, MMR in 31 pts, MR4 in 18 pts, MR4.5 in 19 pts and MR5 in 47 pts. Rate of response with 2G and ponatinib was significantly better than imatinib (85.3% and 77.3% vs 63.6%; p=0.04). 149 (55.4%) pts proceeded to alloSCT. Of the 213 pts that responded, 59 (27.7%) relapsed. At a median follow-up of 47 months, the median OS for all pts was 19.7 months (95% CI: 16.3-40.2 months), with 5-year OS rate of 38% (95% CI: 32-45%). Pts with myeloid phenotype had a significantly lower OS compared to lymphoid and mixed phenotype (Median OS 14.9 vs 45.9 and 31.1 months respectively; p=0.02). OS of pts that were treated with a combination of TKI and chemo was significantly longer compared to pts treated with TKI or chemo alone (52.9 vs 16.1 or 7.5 months; p<0.0001). Dasatinib (n=99; 34.9%) and ponatinib (n=97; 34.3%) were the most used TKIs followed by imatinib (n=23; 8.1%), nilotinib (n=21; 7.4%), bosutinib (n=8; 2.8%) and asciminib (n=3; 1.1%). Pts treated with ponatinib had a numerically longer OS compared to 2G-TKI and imatinib, however this was not statistically significant (40.1 vs 30.6 and 20.3 months; p=0.52). EFS for pts treated with ponatinib was significantly longer compared to 2G-TKI or imatinib (25.9 vs 17.6 and 15.9 months; p=0.03). In a landmark analysis, pts that underwent alloSCT within 6 months of diagnosis had a significantly longer OS compared to those who did not (69.3 vs 16.0 months; p=0.006). Conclusion: CML-BP continues to have poor prognosis. Treatment is heterogenous involving various combinations of TKI and chemo. In our analysis, treatment with 2G-TKI or ponatinib led to better responses. CML-BP with myeloid phenotype had worse OS. Treatment with ponatinib was associated with a numerically longer OS and significantly longer EFS compared to 2G-TKI and imatinib. In addition, treatment with chemo in combination with TKI and alloSCT led to improved OS.

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.

e20011 Background: The therapeutic landscape of lung cancer is rapidly evolving, presenting oncologists with the challenge of staying updated amidst an overwhelming influx of data. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools, including artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs), may help bridge this gap. Evaluating the accuracy of LLMs in complex, real-world oncology scenarios is crucial to understanding their potential. Methods: Twenty-five de-identified lung cancer cases from the fellows’ clinic at Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, were analyzed. Two LLMs, GPT-4 (OpenAI) and Claude Opus (Anthropic), were assessed using advanced prompting techniques like persona-based and chain-of-thought prompting. Five board-certified lung cancer oncologists from NCI-designated centers evaluated LLM-generated responses based on accuracy, treatment recommendation comprehensiveness, and supportive care planning, using a 1–5 scale. Novel insights, the presence of fabricated information, and harmful recommendations were flagged as binary outcomes. Oncologists were blinded to the LLM source and actual treatment decisions. Results: Table 1 presents patient characteristics. GPT-4 achieved an average accuracy score of 4.2 (95% CI, 3.9–4.4), with 3.7 for comprehensiveness of medical/surgical treatment recommendations and 3.7 for supportive care planning. Six responses (32%) were flagged as potentially harmful, and two (8%) contained inaccuracies. Sixteen GPT-4 responses (64%) were rated trustworthy as a CDS tool. Claude Opus had an average accuracy score of 3.6 (95% CI, 3.1–4.1), scoring 3.6 for treatment recommendation comprehensiveness and 3.5 for supportive care planning. Nine responses (36%) were flagged for potential harm, and five (20%) included inaccuracies. Eleven Claude responses (44%) were deemed trustworthy. Significant differences were observed in accuracy (p=0.04) and trustworthiness (p=0.03) between models using McNemar's test. Other factors showed no statistical significance. Conclusions: GPT-4 outperformed Claude Opus in accuracy and trustworthiness, but both models demonstrated limitations, including harmful recommendations and inaccuracies. These findings highlight the need for improved LLM refinement before routine use as CDS tools in lung cancer treatment. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics. Category subcategory Number Median Age (range)- Yr 65 (26-78) Female 7 Male 18 Histology Adenocarcinoma 10 Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC) 7 Small Cell Carcinoma 6 Poorly Differentiated 2 Total 25 Stage NSCLC Stage 3 7 NSCLC Stage 4 13 Small Cell limited stage 3 Small Cell Extensive Stage 2

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.