Al‐Kali, Aref

Background: Oral decitabine/cedazuridine (ASTX727) is a fixed dose combination of decitabine (35 mg) and the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine (100 mg) given once daily X 5 days on a 28-day cycle producing pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure equivalent to the standard intravenous (IV) decitabine regimen of 20 mg/m 2 daily X 5 days on a 28-day cycle. This was demonstrated in the pivotal ASCERTAIN study (Garcia-Manero, et al, ASH 2019) as it provided a PK bridge to existing decitabine data and demonstrated median OS was 31.7 mo. (Savona,et al. Intl. MDSF International Congress on MDS, 2021). Subjects were initially classified by the International Prognosis Scoring System (IPSS) for historical reasons, however IPSS-R and IPSS-M are enhancements to IPSS that provide dynamic risk assessment for predicting clinical outcomes in MDS. Here, the objective was to re-classify the MDS subjects enrolled on the ASCERTAIN study by IPSS-R and IPSS-M and measure the impact of informing patient outcomes based on re-calculated risk assessment. Methods: One hundred thirty-three subjects with MDS/CMML (chronic myelomonocytic leukemia) were enrolled in ASCERTAIN and were randomly assigned either IV decitabine for cycle 1 and oral decitabine/cedazuridine for cycle 2 or the opposite treatment sequence. All subjects continuing beyond cycle 2 received oral decitabine/cedazuridine for all subsequent cycles until treatment discontinuation for disease progression, toxicity, patient's decision, or HSCT. Whole blood collected prior to treatment was used for DNA isolation and molecular abnormalities identified using next-generation sequencing (NGS) hematologic malignancy panel of 179 genes including all genes commonly mutated in MDS. In the initial analysis of clinical outcomes, subjects were classified by IPSS with response assessment by IWG 2006 IPSS low and Int-1 risk levels were categorized as lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS), whereas IPSS Int-2 and high-risk categories were categorized as higher-risk MDS (HR-MDS). Subjects with sufficient data based on (e.g., available heme parameters, cytogenetics, NGS etc.) were reclassified by IPSS-R and IPSS-M. Subjects with IPSS-R score of ≤3.5 or IPSS-M of either very low, low, or moderate low were categorized as LR-MDS. Similarly subjects with IPSS-R score of >3.5 or an IPSS-M categorization of either moderate high, high, or very high were categorized as HR-MDS. Reclassified subjects were reassessed for CR (Complete Response), OS, and LFS and Harrell's concordance index (c-index) was used to describe the level of agreement between each scale and outcomes. Results: Based on the available data, the number of MDS subjects in the different risk classifications were the following: IPSS: 117, IPSS-R: 104, and IPSS-M: 105. Thirteen and 12 subjects on the IPSS could not be reclassified in the IPSS-R and IPSS-M, respectively, including 5 Int-1 and 2 low-risk MDS cases. CMML subjects were excluded from these analyses. Re-classification generally resulted in the upgrade of the subjects from LR-MDS to HR-MDS (Fig. 1). Thirty-one (26.5%) subjects from IPSS were reallocated in the IPSS-R to different risk categories; 3 (9.7%) were downgraded and 28 (90.3%) were upgraded. Similarly on reclassification with IPSS-M 34 (32.4%) of the patients reclassified; 5 (14.8%) were downgraded and 29 (85.3%) were upgraded. For IPSS LR-MDS, 23.2% of patients achieved CR, and 22.9% in the IPSS HR-MDS. Similarly, 21.6% patients achieved CR in the IPSS-R LR-MDS, and 23.9% in the IPSS-R HR-MDS; 26.3% patients achieved CR in the IPSS-M LR-MDS, and 20.9% in the IPSS-M HR-MDS. The c-index for the IPSS was .64 (OS) and .67 (LFS), IPSS-R was .70 (OS) and .71 (LFS), and .75 (OS) and .78 (LFS) for the IPSS-M (Table1). Conclusion: Reclassification from IPSS to IPSS-R or IPSS-M upgraded multiple subjects from a LR to a HR category, describing the ASCERTAIN patient population as a majority higher risk population with worse prognosis than previously assumed based on the IPSS. The efficacy as measured by the CR rates did not change when the LR and HR categories were defined by the different risk stratification systems. In contrast, the c-index improves with migration from IPSS to IPSS-R to IPSS-M, indicating an increased discriminatory ability of IPSS-M score in comparison to IPSS and IPSS-R, to predict patient outcomes.

Introduction: Germline DEAD-box RNA helicase-1 mutant (DDX41) predisposition syndrome ( DDX41-MT-GPS) is one of the most frequent hereditary predisposition syndromes in adults with myeloid neoplasms (MN-2-5%). Somatic mosaicism involving the unmutated DDX41 allele (e.g., R525H) as a potential mechanism for myeloid evolution has been reported in 39-50% of patients (pts). In addition, given the later age of onset, somatic mosaic states composed of age-related clonal hematopoiesis (ARCH) (e.g., DNMT3A, ASXL1, TET2, and TP53), with reported frequencies less than expected in MDS and AML, have been documented. We conducted this study to define the somatic mosaic landscape in DDX41-MT-GPS . Methods: After approval from the Mayo Clinic IRB the prospective GPS database was queried for pts with DDX41-MT GPS. Germline confirmation was conducted on skin fibroblast-, or hair follicle-derived DNA. Somatic CH testing was conducted using a targeted NGS panel as previously described. Given the high frequency of variants of undetermined significance (VUS), comparisons were made between pathogenic ( DDX41path) and DDX41VUS. Results: We identified 106 pts with DDX41-MT-GPS, of which 83 (78%) met criteria for MN, 16 (15%) for CH/CCUS (clonal cytopenias of undetermined significance), while 7 (6%) were unaffected carriers. Somatic mosaicism in DDX41-GPS patients without MN Sixteen DDX41-MT pts without MN met criteria for CH/CCUS ( DDX41path [n=4] and DDX41VUS [n=12]; median age 69 years (yrs) (range [R], 19-78) ( DDX41path [69 yrs] and DDX41VUS [67 yrs], p=0.85), with a male predilection (75%). Four (25%) pts had somatic DDX41 MT (R525H [n=3] and A376T [n=1]) with median variant allele frequency (VAF) 10.5% (R, 5-27); 2 (50%) pts with germline DDX41path had R525H (VAF; 5% and 13%) and 1 (8%) pt each with germline DDX41VUS had R525H (VAF 5%) and A376T (VAF 27%) somatic variants, respectively. Abnormal cytogenetics (CG) were observed in 2/13 evaluable (15%) pts ([+8 and del20q]) in the germline DDX41path group only (p= 0.05). ARCH co-mutations were observed in 11 (69%) pts, not significantly (NS) different between DDX41path (75%) and DDX41VUS (75%), p= 0.66. Individual co-mutations: DNMT3A (25% vs 16%, p= > 0.99), ASXL1 (25% vs 8%, p=0.71), TET2 (25% vs 8%, p= >0.99), and JAK2 (0% vs 8%, p= >0.99) were NS different between the two groups. Somatic mosaicism in DDX41-GPS patients with MN Eight-three pts met criteria for MN ( DDX41path [n=43] and DDX41VUS [n=40]; median age 67 yrs (range [R], 27-92), with a male predilection (58%). Fifty-four (65%) pts had MDS ( DDX41path [55%] and DDX41VUS [45%], p=0.55) and 29 (35%) had AML ( DDX41path [41%] and DDX41VUS [59%], p=0.65). Overall, 15 (18%) pts had somatic DDX41 MT; 12 (80%) pts with DDX41path and 3 (20%) pts with DDX41VUS (p= 0.003). The median VAF of somatic DDX41 MT was 12% (R, 5-37), NS different between DDX41path (10.5%) and DDX41VUS (12%) (p=0.08). The most common somatic DDX41 MT was R525H (66% [n=10]), significantly associated with DDX41path (9/10 [90%]), p=0.01. ARCH was observed in 17 (20%) pts, significantly higher in DDX41path (76%) compared to DDX41VUS (24%), p= 0.03. Abnormal CG were observed in 10/73 evaluable (14%) pts (-Y [n=2], del 20 [n=3], del 5q [n=2], del 7q [n=1], t (3;8) [n=1] and complex CG [n=1]), higher in DDX41path (70%) compared to DDX41VUS (30%) with p value >0.99. We compared the spectrum of CH between DDX41 MT CH/CCUS and MN pts ( Table 1) and found no difference in the proportion of pts with somatic DDX41 MT (p= 0.52) and ARCH/myeloid MT (p= 0.56). The individual occurrences of DNMT3A (p= 0.49), ASXL1 (p= 0.71), TET2 (p=0.59), JAK2 (p>0.99) and TP53 (p= 0.56) mutations were NS different between the two groups ( Figure 1). Conclusion: We define the somatic mosaic landscape in DDX41-MT GPS and demonstrate that somatic mutations involving the other allele, especially R525H, are seen in ~20% of pts (>80% of R525H present in MN). The frequency and composition of ARCH and myeloid driver mutations was lower than expected for the age of presentation, in comparison to de novo and secondary MDS/AML and occurred more frequently in DDX41path compared to DDX41VUS. Forty-two % (n=41), including 37% with MN, did not have somatic mosaicism, underscoring the fact that mechanisms of leukemia progression remain to be defined in subsets of affected pts.

BACKGROUND: Recently proposed World Health Organization (WHO, 5 th edition) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) recognized myeloid neoplasms (MN) harboring TP53-mutated ( TP53mut) as a separate entity. However, there are critical differences between the two classifications regarding allelic-status, variance allele frequency (VAF) cut-off and blast categories, that may lead to under- or overestimation of the risk. METHODS: We analyzed MN harboring TP53mut (VAF ≥2%, n=536) managed at Mayo Clinic (USA) and South Australia Health Network (Australia). ICC (Arber et al, Blood 2022) and WHO (Bluebook, Beta v2) definitions were used to stratify MN harboring TP53mut. RESULTS: Of 536 cases, 379 (71%) had myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) (<20% blasts) and 157 (29%) had acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Using WHO, 160 (42%) of 379 were classified as MDS-bi TP53 as they harbored 2 TP53mut (n=115; 30%) or 1 TP53mut plus confirmed loss of heterozygosity (LOH) or copy neutral LOH (cnLOH) of TP53 locus (n=45; 12%). Sixty-two (16%) TP53mut MDS with VAF >49% were classified as presumptive MDS-bi TP53. Of the 157 cases with 1 TP53mut VAF ≤49%, 17 confirmed to have an intact wild-type TP53 copy and were classified as monoallelic. While 140 (89%) cases did not have copy number variation (CNV) analysis. We next evaluated the number of TP53mut cases classified differently by WHO and ICC. As WHO does not recognize TP53mut AML as a separate entity, 157 (29%) TP53mut AML were not classifiable. 46% (174/379) of the TP53mut MDS including 48 (30%), 12 (19%) and 79 (65%) of bi TP53, presumptive bi TP53 and monoallelic TP53mut MDS according to WHO were classified differently by ICC ( Figure 1A). Discordance between the two classifications were predominantly driven by: (i) The difference in VAF cut-off. Sixty patients (11%) with TP53mut VAF <10% were excluded from the ICC classification of TP53mut MN as it mandates TP53mut VAF cut-off ≥10%. 11 (18%) and 41 (68%) of these had bi TP53, monoallelic TP53mut MDS by WHO criteria while 8 (13%) had AML. Importantly, within the VAF <10% cohort, median overall survival (OS) of 2 TP53mut or 1 TP53mut with 17p13.1 (hereafter 17p) deletion or complex karyotype (CK, n=30) was significantly poor compared to 1 TP53mut VAF <10% (11.6 vs 32.4 months; P =0.002, Figure 1B), suggesting that ICC may underestimate the poor prognosis of multi-hit or multi-hit equivalent TP53mut MN with VAF <10%. (ii) The difference in bone marrow blast cut-off. The underlying assumption by WHO is that prognosis of bi TP53mut MDS is poor irrespective of blast percentage category (0-9% vs 10-19%). In contrast, ICC considers that TP53mut MDS/AML (blasts 10-19%) is associated with poor prognosis irrespective of TP53 allelic status. Median OS of TP53mut MDS with 10-19% blasts was significantly poor compared to blast 0-9% (6.4 vs 11.6 months, P <0.0001). Second, median OS of bi TP53mut was significantly poor than monoallelic TP53mut in MDS- blast 0-9% (10.1 vs 15.9 months; P =0.0001) but not in blasts 10-19% (6.8 vs 6.2 months; P =0.19). Hence, exclusion of monoallelic TP53mut MDS with blast 10-19% as TP53mut MN from the WHO classification may underestimate the poor prognosis. (iii) The difference in the definition of biallelic and multi-hit TP53 loss. 35 cases with 1 TP53mut VAF ≤49%, had 17p deletion but did not have CNV analysis to confirm the loss of TP53 locus and could not be classified further using WHO. ICC classified 18 (50%) of these cases as multi-hit. Median OS of 1 TP53mut VAF ≤49%, and 17p deletion on karyotype was significantly poor than 1 TP53mut (VAF ≤49%without 17p deletion on karyotype (6.4 vs 14.6 months, P =0.001). (iv) The difference in the definition of multi-hit equivalent. 32% (33/104) WHO defined monoallelic cases without available CNV data, were classified as multi-hit-equivalent by ICC as they harbored CK. However, WHO does not consider CK as presumptive evidence of bi TP53. Median OS of 1 TP53mut VAF ≤49% with CK was significantly poor compared to 1 TP53mut without CK (8.2 vs 26.9 months, P =0.0008). CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence that poor prognosis of ‘multi-hit’ TP53 with VAF <10% is underestimated by ICC. On the other hand, poor prognosis of monoallelic TP53 MDS with 10-19% blasts as well as 1 TP53mut VAF ≤49% in the presence of CK is underestimated by WHO. These data suggest that both classifications can be further refined.

AbstractBackgroundDespite recent approval of several new agents, relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) remains challenging to treat. Sapanisertib (MLN0128/TAK‐228) is an oral TORC1/2 inhibitor that exhibited preclinical activity against ALL.MethodsWe conducted a single‐arm multi‐center Phase II study of sapanisertib monotherapy (3 mg orally daily of the milled formulation for 21 days every 28 days) in patients with ALL through the Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (NCI‐9775).ResultsSixteen patients, 15 of whom were previously treated (median 3 prior lines of therapy), were enrolled. Major grade 3–4 non‐hematologic toxicities included mucositis (3 patients) and hyperglycemia (2 patients) as well as hepatic failure, seizures, confusion, pneumonitis, and anorexia (1 patient each). Grade >2 hematological toxicity included leukopenia (3), lymphopenia (2), thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia (1). The best response was stable disease in 2 patients (12.5%), while only 3 patients (19%) were able to proceed to Cycle 2. Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated drug exposures similar to those observed in solid tumor patients. Immunoblotting in serially collected samples indicated limited impact of treatment on phosphorylation of mTOR pathway substrates such as 4EBP1, S6, and AKT.ConclusionIn summary, single‐agent sapanisertib had a good safety profile but limited target inhibition or efficacy in ALL as a single agent. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02484430.

AbstractThe World Health Organization (WHO) classification system categorizes advanced systemic mastocytosis (SM‐Adv) into aggressive SM (ASM), mast cell leukemia (MCL), and SM with associated hematological neoplasm (SM‐AHN). By contrast, the International Consensus Classification (ICC) requires “immature” MC cytomorphology for the diagnosis of MCL and limits SM‐AHN to myeloid neoplasms (SM‐AMN). The current study includes 329 patients with SM‐Adv (median age 65 years, range 18–88; males 58%): WHO subcategories SM‐AHN (N = 212; 64%), ASM (N = 99; 30%), and MCL (N = 18; 6%); ICC subcategories SM‐AMN (N = 190; 64%), ASM (N = 99; 33%), and MCL (N = 9; 3%); WHO‐defined MCL with “mature” MC cytomorphology and SM‐AHN associated with lymphoid neoplasms were operationally labeled as “MCL‐mature” (N = 9) and SM‐ALN (N = 22), respectively, and distinguished from ICC‐defined MCL and SM‐AMN. Multivariable analysis that included the Mayo alliance risk factors for survival in SM (age >60 years, anemia, thrombocytopenia, increased alkaline phosphatase) revealed more accurate survival prediction with the ICC versus WHO classification order: (i) survival was significantly worse with MCL‐immature versus MCL‐mature (hazard ratio [HR] 15; p < .01), (ii) prognostic distinction between MCL and SM‐AHN/AMN was confirmed in the context of ICC (HR 9.3; p < .01) but not WHO classification order (p = .99), (iii) survival was similar between MCL‐mature and SM‐AMN (p = .18), and (iv) SM‐AMN (HR 1.7; p < .01) but not SM‐ALN (p = .37) was prognostically distinct from ASM. The current study provides evidence for the independent prognostic contribution of both the ICC system for SM‐Adv and the Mayo alliance risk factors for survival in SM.

SummaryVenetoclax (VEN) is an FDA‐approved selective inhibitor of B‐cell leukaemia/lymphoma‐2 (BCL‐2), used for treating elderly or unfit acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) patients unable to undergo intensive chemotherapy. Combining VEN with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) has shown impressive response rates in high‐risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and relapsed/refractory AML. However, the efficacy of VEN and HMAs in treating DDX41‐mutated (mDDX41) MDS/AML patients remains uncertain. Despite the favourable prognostic nature of mDDX41 MDS/AML patients, there is a lack of clinical experience regarding their response to different treatment regimens, leading to an unknown optimal therapeutic approach.