Hogan, William H.

Abstract Background: The primary goal of induction therapy in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is to induce complete remission with (CR) or without (CRi) hematologic recovery. In order to accomplish this, re-induction might be necessary based on D14-residual AML. The current study examines the impact of re-induction on relapse, transplant-censored survival, and post-transplant survival in a consecutive series of AML patients who have achieved CR/CRi following intensive chemotherapy. The study also examined the impact of variations in consolidation chemotherapy including the use of anthracycline-based chemotherapy (AC) in the first consolidation cycle and the use of high (HiDAC) vs. intermediate (IDAC) dose cytarabine. Methods: The current study was conducted under IRB-approved minimum risk protocols that allowed retrospective collection and analysis of patient data. Formal criteria were used for AML diagnosis, genetic risk stratification, and adjudication of response (Blood 2022;140:1345). Patients who received less intensive induction regimens or failed to achieve CR/CRi were excluded. Relapse-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) analysis was calculated from the date of documented CR/CRi. Patients who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) were censored at the time of transplant. Conventional statistical methods were utilized (JMP Pro 17.1.0, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Results: A total of 279 AML patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2020 were included: median age 58 years, males 60%, de novo 75%, post-chronic myeloid neoplasm (post-CMN) 16%, and therapy-related 9%. Induction regimens included idarubicin (Ida) + cytarabine (Cyt) in 183 (66%) patients, daunorubicin (Da) 60 mg/m² + Cyt in 76 (27%), and Da 90 mg/m2 + Cyt in 19 (7%). Re-induction was utilized to achieve CR/CRi in 72 (27%) at a median of 18 days from start of first induction regimen. The indication for re-induction was based on residual bone marrow blast (median 30%; range 4-90) on day14 (N=53) or day 21-28 (N=15), persistent extramedullary disease (N=2) or the presence of circulating blast (N=2). At a median transplant censored follow-up of 26 months (mos), 93 (33%) deaths, 117 (42%) relapses, and 134 (48%) ASCTs were documented; ASCTs were performed in CR1 (50%) or CR2 (50%). Median RFS was 18 mos, with respective 1-, 2-, 3- year RFS of 63%, 42% and 35%. In multivariable analysis (MVA), age ≥65 years (HR 1.5, p=0.04), European LeukemiaNet (ELN) adverse karyotype (vs. intermediate HR 1.7, p=0.02; vs. favorable HR 2.8, p<0.01), and the need for re-induction to achieve CR/CRi (HR 1.7, p=0.01) were independently predictive of relapse. RFS was not impacted by NPM1 mutation ( HR 0.5, p=0.09) or FLT3-ITD (HR 1.3, p=0.3). The median OS was 80 mos, with 5-year OS of 53%. In MVA, age ≥65 years (HR 2, p=0.01), ELN adverse karyotype (vs. intermediate HR 3.3, p<0.01; vs. favorable HR 4.7, p<0.01), FLT3-ITD (HR 1.9, p=0.04), and the need for re-induction (HR 1.9, p=0.03) independently predicted inferior OS. RFS was similar among patients who received AC (N=84; Idarubicin 9 mg/m2 or Da 60 mg/m2 days 1 to 2/3 + 100 mg/m2 Cyt days 1 to 5/7; median 18 mos) as their first consolidation cycle vs. those who received HiDAC (N=99; 3 g/m2 q12 hours on days 1,3 and 5; median 16 mos) or IDAC (N=58; IDAC; 1-2 g/m2 q12 hours on days 1, 3 and 5; median 24 mos; p=0.9); the corresponding median OS were 125, 85, and 40 mos (p=0.4). In patients aged ≥65 years, but not younger patients, both RFS (p<0.01; median 23 (N=36) vs. 8 (N=24) mos) and OS (median 40 vs. 12 mos, p<0.01) were significantly longer with IDAC vs. AC as their first consolidation cycle. In the AC consolidation cohort, patients who received 2-3 additional HiDAC/IDAC cycles displayed longer OS (p<0.01) and RFS (p=0.047), compared to those who received less. In both the HiDAC and IDAC cohorts, RFS and OS were not significantly different between those who received 3-4 versus 1-2 consolidation cycles. The need for re-induction did not affect post-transplant survival (p=0.5), which was superior in patients receiving Ida + Cyt induction (vs. Da 60mg/m2 + Cyt, HR 0.6, p=0.04) and in those transplanted in CR1 (HR 0.5, p<0.01). Conclusions: The current study signals the need for re-induction to achieve CR1 as a negative predictor of outcome in AML patients achieving CR/CRi following intensive induction chemotherapy. The particular information is potentially actionable in terms of the choice of consolidation strategy.

Abstract Introduction The European Leukemia Net (ELN) 2022 stratified acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients (pts) treated with intensive chemotherapy (IC) into three groups based on genetic features. ELN 2024 (Döhner et al, Blood) and Beat AML 2024 (Hoff et al, Blood Advances) proposed revised systems to better capture the impact of genetic features in pts receiving less-intensive therapy (LIT). Real-world validation across treatment settings, including allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT), is warranted. Methods We evaluated the performance of ELN 2022, ELN 2024, and Beat AML 2024 among AML pts treated at Mayo Clinic from 2016 to 2025. Only treated pts with available molecular data included. Response was assessed according to the ELN 2022 criteria. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from diagnosis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard (CPH) models were used to adjust for covariates. Model performances were assessed using Harrell's c-index. Results 426 AML pts (median age 68 years; 60% male) were included; 195 (46%) received IC and 231 (54%) received LIT, while Allo-HCT was performed in 133 (31%) pts. Complex karyotype was present in 126 (30%) and normal cytogenetics in 143 (34%) pts. Molecular mutations included TP53 (20%), TET2 (18%), DNMT3A (16%), SRSF2 (16%), RUNX1 (16%), ASXL1 (16%), and NPM1 (15%). Among evaluable pts (83%), complete remission (CR) after first-line therapy was achieved in 47%. Risk group assignments varied: ELN 2022 vs. ELN 2024 classified pts as favorable (20% vs. 55%), intermediate (20% vs. 24%), and adverse (60% vs. 20%); Beat AML 2024 categorized pts as favorable (41%), intermediate (21%), and adverse (38%). ELN 2024 reclassified 229 (54%) pts of whom 5% upstaged and 49% downstaged, primarily affecting ELN 2022 adverse (67%) and intermediate (46%) groups. Among LIT-treated, CR rates did not differ across groups in any classification. Per ELN 2024, CR was achieved in 43% (favorable), 67% (intermediate), and 29% (adverse) of the LIT-treated pts. However, among IC-treated pts, CR was higher in favorable/intermediate vs. adverse groups across all models (p<0.0001). Allo-HCT was most common in ELN 2024 intermediate (41%) and favorable (32%) vs. adverse (16%) groups. Median OS (months; 95% CI) for the entire cohort was 15.7 (12.5–20.9) with median follow-up time of 49.8 (40.9-55). By ELN 2022, OS of the entire cohort was 49.4 (30.7–NA) for favorable, 50.0 (29.2–NA) for intermediate, and 8.8 (7.7–11.2) for adverse (p<0.0001). Per ELN 2024, OS of the entire cohort was 25.4 (18.5–37.3), 20.3 (13.4–39.8), and 5.7 (3.4–8.2), respectively (p<0.0001). Beat AML 2024 stratified OS of the entire cohort as 42.5 (30.7–NA), 11.4 (9.3–16.7), and 5.6 (3.5–8.0) for favorable, intermediate, and adverse groups (p<0.0001). ELN 2024 stratified the OS of the pts treated with LIT as 15.7 (10.1-24.9), 8.0 (4.9-13.9), and 6.8 (3.4-10.2) for favorable, intermediate and adverse risk groups, (p <0.0001). Among ELN 2022 adverse-risk pts, those reclassified as favorable per ELN 2024 had superior OS (15.0, 9.8–22.7) compared to intermediate (7.8, 5.0–9.3) or adverse (5.4, 3.3–8.0) risk groups, p<0.0001. C-index (95% CI) for OS in the entire cohort was highest for Beat AML 2024 (0.658, 0.629–0.688), followed by ELN 2022 (0.627, 0.599–0.655), and ELN 2024 (0.600, 0.568–0.631). In LIT-treated pts, ELN 2024 (0.597, 0.558–0.637) and Beat AML 2024 (0.586, 0.545–0.627) outperformed ELN 2022 (0.559, 0.521–0.596). Among allo-HCT pts, regardless of treatment type, ELN 2022 (0.610, 0.539–0.681) performed better than ELN 2024 (0.568, 0.487–0.648). In multivariable CPH models adjusted for age, bone marrow blasts, treatment intensity, and complex karyotype, ELN 2022 and ELN 2024 adverse-risk groups had higher hazard of death (HR 2.4, 1.6–3.5 and HR 1.7, 1.1–2.5, respectively, vs. favorable). No significant difference was observed between intermediate and favorable risk for ELN 2022 (HR 1.4, 0.9–2.2) or ELN 2024 (HR 1.4, 0.9–1.9). Allo-HCT was associated with a lower hazard of death (HR 0.4, 0.3–0.5). Conclusions In this real-world AML cohort, ELN 2024 and Beat AML 2024 improved OS prediction in LIT-treated pts compared to ELN 2022. This advantage was not observed in allo-HCT pts. Multivariable analysis confirmed the adverse-risk group as having the worst prognosis across all models. These findings highlight the importance of aligning molecular risk stratification with treatment modalities to enhance prognostication in AML.

Abstract Background: Clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) is defined as clonal hematopoiesis in the absence of a hematologic neoplasm, along with unexplained cytopenia. While several studies have identified risk factors and developed scores to predict progression to overt myeloid neoplasms, the clinical and molecular features during the progression process remain poorly understood. Aim: Evaluate the clinical and clonal characteristics of patients with CCUS, with a focus on the longitudinal evolution of clonal and clinical parameters over time. Methods: After IRB approval, we retrospectively reviewed charts of patients with unexplained cytopenia (2015-2024), recording data at the time of CCUS diagnosis (WHO 2022 diagnostic criteria) and at time of follow-up bone marrow biopsy after diagnosis. Follow-up CBC and karyotype data were recorded for patients who had repeat bone marrow biopsies (n= 111), while follow-up clonal parameters and risk scores were calculated for those who underwent repeat NGS (n= 74). A reduction or expansion in clone size was defined as a change exceeding 5% (CE5%), or change exceeding 10% (CE10%) from the baseline value. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from diagnosis to last follow-up. For statistical analysis, we used BlueSky Statistics V10.3.1. Results: 214 CCUS patients (median age 73, 68% males) were included. At baseline, 30% of patients had abnormal cytogenetics, with del (20q) being the most common one (8%; n= 18), followed by trisomy 8 (6%; n= 13), and loss of chromosome Y (5%; n= 10). The median number of mutations was 2 (range, 1-5), with the most common mutations TET2 (38%), SRSF2 (21.5%), ASXL1 (21%), ZRSR2 (18.5%), DNMT3A (9.5%), and U2AF1 (9%). Most patients had high risk CHRS (60%), followed by intermediate (30%), and low risk (10%). On the other hand, 41% had high risk CCRS, 29% had intermediate risk, and 30% had low risk. After a median follow-up of 46 months, 62 patients died (median OS not reached). A decrease in the white blood cell (WBC) count from the time of diagnosis to follow-up was more frequently seen among CCUS patients who progressed to MN (70% vs 50%, p= 0.04), however, changes in hemoglobin and platelets did not differ between those who progressed and those who did not (p> 0.05). Although the frequency of abnormal karyotypes at diagnosis was similar between patients who eventually progressed (28%) and those who did not (31%) (p= 0.6), 4 (2%) patients with initially normal karyotypes acquired chromosomal abnormalities during follow-up, and all progressed to MDS. Among the 74 patients who had follow-up NGS, 31% acquired new mutations, clonal expansion of pre-existing mutations were seen in 54% using CE5% and 19% per CE10%, and 16% developed new variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Acquiring new pathogenic mutations was similar in patients who progressed to MN compared to those who did not progress (34% vs 28%, p= 0.6). On the other hand, clonal expansion was significantly more observed in patients who progressed compared to those who did not, using both CE5% (73% vs 31%, p = <0.001) and CE10% (27% vs 9%, p= 0.03). At follow-up, ASXL1 was the most commonly acquired mutation among patients who did not progress (4 cases), followed by TET2 (2 cases), and U2AF1, GATA2, DNMT3A, SF3B1, ZRSR2, TP53, and CBL (1 case each). On the other hand, SRSF2, SETBP1, CBL, JAK2, TET2, and RUNX1 were more frequently acquired among those who progressed to myeloid neoplasms (each appeared in 2 patients). When recalculating CCRS, CHRS, IPSS-M, and IPSS-R at follow-up for patients who had repeat NGS, there was no significant difference in score changes - either upward or downward - between those who progressed and those who did not (p> 0.05). Conclusion: In CCUS patients who progressed to myeloid neoplasms, WBC decline, clonal expansion (more frequent), and evolving chromosomal aberrations (less frequent) were observed, supporting the value of longitudinal genomic and clinical monitoring in CCUS.

Abstract Prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients is influenced by various factors, most importantly, patient clinical status and cytogenetic/molecular abnormalities. Within those factors, elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) is considered a poor prognostic indicator in AML patients. Our study aims at exploring the different factors associated with elevated LDH and their impact on overall survival (OS). After obtaining IRB approval, we reviewed the charts of 381 AML patients diagnosed at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, between the years of 2016 and 2023. All data was recorded at the time of AML diagnosis. Patients with no cytogenetic and molecular data were excluded from this study. LDH levels were recorded if measured within 10 days of diagnosis and treatment for AML was not yet given. Both risk stratification and response evaluation were done following the 2022 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) guidelines. OS was calculated from the date of AML diagnosis to the date of last follow-up or death. We used BlueSky Statistics V 10.3.4 for statistical analysis. We identified 299 patients (78.4%) who had elevated LDH levels (normal ≤ 222 U/L) at the time of diagnosis with a median of 417 U/L (range, 223-7989). The median age for those patients was 68 years (range, 18-94), with 78 (26.1%) of them having a prior myeloid disease (MDS, MPN, or MDS/MPN) before AML diagnosis. By risk stratification, more than half of the patients had an adverse risk profile (n=171, 57.2%), while 71 (23.7%) and 57 (19.1%) had an intermediate and favorable risk, respectively. Most of those patients had an abnormal karyotype (n=204, 68.7%), with complex karyotype (n=103, 34.7%) being the most common abnormality, followed by monosomy 7 (n=50, 16.8%) and trisomy 8 (n=46, 15.5%). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed on 268 (89.6%) patients with elevated LDH, and the most common mutations were TP53 (n=60, 22.3%), FLT3-ITD (n=59, 21.1%), and NPM1 (n=51, 18.5%). TP53 mutations were more common in patients with normal/low white blood cell count (WBC) in contrast with FLT3 and NPM1, which were the most common mutations in patients with high WBC. After grouping the patients according to their LDH levels (group 1: 223-444 U/L, group 2: 444-666 U/L, group 3: > 666 U/L), we found that FLT3-ITD mutations were more likely to occur at higher LDH levels i.e. groups 2 and 3 (p= 0.002). The majority of patients with elevated LDH (n=262, 87.6%) received therapy following diagnosis, with the most common treatment regimens being a combination of a hypomethylating agent and venetoclax (HMA+VEN) (n=97, 37%) and a (7+3)-based induction therapy (n=77, 29.4%). When comparing patients with elevated LDH (n=299, 78.4%) to patients who had non-elevated LDH (n=82, 21.5%), no difference in both median age at diagnosis and risk stratification was found. We noticed an increase in WBC (median, 7.7 vs. 2.1) (p<0.001) along with an increase in peripheral blasts (median, 28% vs. 7%) (p<0.001) in elevated LDH patients. Among patients with non-elevated LDH, 21% (n=17) had a complex karyotype compared to 34.7% (n=103) in the elevated LDH group (p=0.022). The molecular profile was different between the 2 groups, where the most common mutations in patients with non-elevated LDH were IDH2 (n=19, 25.3%), RUNX1 (n=17, 23%), and DNMT3A (n=16, 21.6%). All patients (n=82, 100%) in the non-elevated LDH group received therapy after diagnosis. There was no difference in terms of treatment regimens used between the 2 groups. Moreover, no statistical difference in remission rates after one line of therapy was found between those groups where non-elevated LDH patients had a 65.9% remission rate compared to the 55.3% remission rate in patients with elevated LDH (p=0.098). Patients with elevated LDH had a shorter OS than patients with non-elevated LDH (9.5 vs. 26.4 months, p=0.0008). However, median OS was similar across the different groups of elevated LDH. Using univariate analysis in our cohort (n=381), age, HSCT, risk stratification, FLT3 mutation, and LDH elevation all had an impact on OS. However, when comparing those variables using multivariate analysis, age and FLT3 mutation lost their significance (p-value of 0.25 and 0.84, respectively).Complex karyotype and FLT3 mutations were more common in patients with elevated LDH. These patients tend to have higher WBC and peripheral blasts. Elevated LDH had a negative impact on patients' OS regardless of patients' risk classification.