Risk‐Adjusted Comparison of Survival in Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia With and Without Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant: Mayo Clinic Experience in 775 Consecutive Patients
ABSTRACT The recently published BLAST clinical risk model for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and its molecular version (BLAST‐Mol) differentiate low, intermediate, and high‐risk groups. The objective of the current retrospective study was to examine the survival impact of allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) in a consecutive series of Mayo Clinic patients ( n = 775; 68% males, median age 71 years) with CMML, overall and adjusted for baseline BLAST/BLAST‐Mol risk categories. At a median follow‐up of 77 months, 151 (20%) patients underwent ASCT. Overall survival (OS) was longer in the ASCT compared to the non‐ASCT cohorts (median 77 vs. 28 months; p < 0.01). The significant difference in OS between the ASCT and non‐ASCT cohorts was retained after adjusting for BLAST clinical risk groups: high‐risk (median 50 vs. 14 months; p < 0.01), intermediate‐risk (81 vs. 28 months; p < 0.01), and low‐risk (111 vs. 65 months; p = 0.04), respectively. The same was mostly the case when OS comparison was adjusted for BLAST‐Mol with respective p values of < 0.01, < 0.01, and 0.08, respectively. Time‐dependent cox models confirmed the favorable survival impact of ASCT in the BLAST/BLAST‐Mol high‐ and intermediate‐risk groups. The current study highlights the benefit of ASCT for BLAST/BLAST‐Mol high‐ and intermediate‐risk groups in CMML and its potential to overcome the adverse impact of some high risk cytogenetic or molecular abnormalities. These observations support the early use of ASCT in CMML, ideally before BT and regardless of genetic characteristics.
ICC
/
WHO
‐Defined and
NGS
‐Annotated Idiopathic Hypereosinophilia (
iHES
6588 Background: TET2 is the most frequently mutated gene in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and has been associated with favorable outcome, with recent studies suggesting a more pronounced prognostic impact in the presence of ≥2 TET2 mutations ( Csizmar et al. leukemia 2025;39:2030; Kynning et al. Br J Haematol. 2025 Nov 25. doi: 10.1111/bjh.70264 ). We sought to determine if this particular observation extended to patients with ≥3 TET2 mutations ( TET2 MUT ) and also held true in the context of recently reiterated genetic risk factors. Methods: The current study was conducted under institutional review board approved minimum risk protocols allowing retrospective patient data collection and analysis. Diagnostic criteria were according to the International Consensus Classification (Arber et al. Blood 2022. 140:1200). All statistical analyses were conducted using JMP 18 software. Results: 536 CMML patients who underwent CLIA-approved NGS testing were stratified according to the number of TET2 MUT : 221 (41%) wild-type, 148 (28%) with one, 153 (29%) 2, and 14 (2%) ≥3 TET2 MUT . Co-mutation frequencies with significant differences between one vs. two TET2 MUT included ASXL1 (46% vs. 29%; p<0.01), KRAS (7% vs. 14%; p=0.02) and SETBP1 (5% vs. 0.6%; p=0.02). Phenotypic comparisons revealed preponderance of prognostically favorable traits associated with wild-type TET2 but no significant differences between one vs. two TET2 MUT . In age-adjusted univariate analysis, transplant-censored overall survival (TCOS), calculated from the time of mutation detection, was superior in patients with one (p<0.01; HR 0.7) or 2 (p<0.01; HR 0.4) but not ≥3 (p=0.4) TET2 MUT , vs. those with wild-type TET2 . TCOS was also superior with 2 vs. 1 (p=0.02; HR 0.7) but not with ≥3 vs. 1 (p=0.7) TET2 MUT ; the results were similar when TCOS was calculated from the time of diagnosis. Multivariable analysis confirmed the survival advantage of exactly two TET2 MUT vs. wild-type TET2 (p<0.01; HR 0.5), one TET2 MUT (p<0.01; HR 0.6), or ≥3 TET2 MUT (p<0.01; HR 0.4), after adjusting for age, sex, anemia, circulating blasts ≥2%, and leukocyte count ≥13×10⁹/L. The favorable impact of exactly two TET2 MUT persisted in CMML-MD and CMML-MP and remained independent of TET2 VAF, mutation type, karyotype, and other prognostically relevant mutations. This association was sustained in the BLAST (p<0.01; HR 0.5) and CPSS-mol (p=0.02; HR 0.7) models, but not in BLAST-mol model (p=0.12). Conclusions: Mechanistic explanation for this novel observation includes the possibility that TET2 mutational categories based on mutation count reflect distinct biological states rather than having a simple linear effect. The persistence of this signal despite adjustment for established molecular and genetic risk factors supports its consideration in the development of future CMML prognostic models.