DiNardo, Courtney D.

Abstract Ivosidenib is a first-in-class mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (mIDH1) inhibitor with efficacy and tolerability in patients with advanced mIDH1 hematologic malignancies, leading to approval in frontline and relapsed/refractory (R/R) mIDH1 acute myeloid leukemia. We report final data from a phase 1 single-arm substudy of once-daily ivosidenib in patients with R/R mIDH1 myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) after failure of standard-of-care therapies. Primary objectives were to determine safety, tolerability, and clinical activity. The primary efficacy end point was the complete remission (CR) + partial remission (PR) rate. Nineteen patients were enrolled; 18 were included in the efficacy analysis. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 8 (42.1%) patients, including a grade 1 QT interval prolongation in 1 (5.3%) patient and grade 2 differentiation syndrome in 2 (10.5%) patients. Rates of CR + PR and objective response (CR + PR + marrow CR) were 38.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.3-64.3) and 83.3% (95% CI, 58.6-96.4), respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates showed a 68.6% probability of patients in CR achieving a remission duration of ≥5 years, and a median overall survival of 35.7 months. Of note, 71.4% and 75.0% baseline red blood cell (RBC)- and platelet-transfusion-dependent patients, respectively, became transfusion independent (TI; no transfusion for ≥56 days); 81.8% and 100% of baseline RBC and platelet TI patients, respectively, remained TI. One (5.3%) patient proceeded to a hematopoietic stem cell transplant. In conclusion, ivosidenib is clinically active, with durable remissions and a manageable safety profile observed in these patients. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT02074839.

Introduction HMAs are the only approved therapy for CMML. In order to improve response rates and survival, the addition of VEN has been utilized in both CMML and after blast transformation (CMML-BT) with conflicting results in small single center studies. To clarify the role of upfront HMA+VEN in CMML and CMML-BT, we performed a large multicenter analysis. Methods We included patients with HMA-naïve CMML and CMML-BT treated with combination HMA and VEN from 4 academic centers. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) with secondary outcomes including overall response rate (ORR) by 2015 MDS/MPN IWG criteria for CMML and 2022 ELN criteria for CMML-BT. To better appreciate the benefit of adding VEN to HMA treatment, we also performed 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of patients treated with HMA alone as upfront therapy for CMML or CMML-BT. Matching was based on age, sex, ECOG performance status, CPSS-Mol, blood counts, peripheral and bone marrow blasts. Results Eighty-nine patients were treated with frontline HMA+VEN, 51 CMML and 38 CMML-BT (5 had received HMA alone for prior CMML). The median age was 71 years, 70% were male, and 83% had ECOG 0-1. Among CMML patients, 55% had MP-CMML subtype, 65% had CMML-2 and 12%, 30%, 58% were CPSS-mol intermediate-1, intermediate-2 and high risk, respectively. In the entire cohort, ASXL1 (63%), TET2 (47%), SRSF2 (39%) and RUNX1 (27%) were the most commonly mutated genes and 55% of patients harbored a RAS mutation ( KRAS [20%], NRAS [18%], CBL [13%], NF1 [11%], PTPN11 [9%]). For HMA combination partner, 46 (52%) were treated with azacitidine, 35 (39%) with decitabine, and 8 (9%) with both during their VEN course. During a median follow-up time of 15.8 months (mos) 52 patients (58%) died: 23 (45%) with CMML and 29 (76%) with CMML-BT. Among CMML patients, the ORR was 90%, including complete remission (CR) in 22%, complete cytogenic remission (CCR) in 4%, optimal marrow response (CMR) in 50%, and partial marrow response (PMR) in 6%. The OS of CMML patients was 25.1 mo (95% CI 15.7 - NR). A PSM population of HMA patients matched to HMA+VEN treated patients showing similar baseline characteristics. ORR was significantly higher with HMA+VEN (95%) as compared those treated with HMA alone (46%), p < 0.001. However, there was no significant OS difference between HMA+VEN vs HMA alone (19.1 mos vs 19.1 mos, p = 0.85, Figure 1). For CMML-BT patients, the ORR of HMA+VEN was 81% including CR in 17%, CR with partial hematologic recover (CRh) in 3%, CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) in 28%, morphologic leukemia-free state (MLFS) in 22% and partial response (PR) in 11%. The OS of CMML-BT patients was 8 mos (95% CI 4.6 - 26.2). A PSM population of CMML-BT patients treated with HMA alone showed a significantly increased ORR with HMA+VEN (82% vs 40%, p = 0.039). However, there was no difference in OS (7.49 mos vs 9.26 mos, p = 0.83, Figure 2). Among HMA-VEN treated patients, achievement of a CR was associated with an improved OS in the CMML (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 - 0.75) and CMML-BT (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.19 - 0.74). No predictors of response were identified, including the presence of a RAS mutation. In terms of safety, 7 patients (7.9%) had a grade 3/4 (G3/4) neutropenic infection and 2 patients (2.2%) had a G3/4 hemorrhagic event while being treated with HMA+VEN. A total of 29 patients went on to receive allogeneic transplant (alloSCT): 22 (43%) with CMML and 7 (18%) with CMML-BT. CMML patients who underwent alloSCT after HMA+VEN were younger as compared to non-transplanted patients (64 vs 74 years, p < 0.0001), but had otherwise similar baseline characteristics including stage, CPSS-mol category and prevalence of RAS mutations. Similarly, CMML-BT patients bridged to alloSCT were younger (66 vs 74 years, p < 0.002) and had a better ECOG performance status (p = 0.047). Of patients who received alloSCT, 10 patients (34%) died, 5 with CMML and 5 with CMML-BT. The median OS after alloSCT was 26.7 mo. Conclusions Although the use of VEN with HMA in the upfront treatment of CMML and AML secondary to CMML results in higher response rates compared to HMA alone, this combination does not improve survival based on this multi-center PSM analysis. The current sample size of CMML-BT may limit detection of OS differences between treatment groups. The role of VEN to reduce blasts and serve as a bridge to alloSCT, particularly after HMA failure, requires further investigation in larger studies in both the CMML and CMML-BT populations.

Abstract Myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias derive from the clonal expansion of hematopoietic cells driven by somatic gene mutations. Although assessment of morphology plays a crucial role in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with these malignancies, genomic characterization has become increasingly important for accurate diagnosis, risk assessment, and therapeutic decision making. Conventional cytogenetics, a comprehensive and unbiased method for assessing chromosomal abnormalities, has been the mainstay of genomic testing over the past several decades and remains relevant today. However, more recent advances in sequencing technology have increased our ability to detect somatic mutations through the use of targeted gene panels, whole-exome sequencing, whole-genome sequencing, and whole-transcriptome sequencing or RNA sequencing. In patients with myeloid neoplasms, whole-genome sequencing represents a potential replacement for both conventional cytogenetic and sequencing approaches, providing rapid and accurate comprehensive genomic profiling. DNA sequencing methods are used not only for detecting somatically acquired gene mutations but also for identifying germline gene mutations associated with inherited predisposition to hematologic neoplasms. The 2022 International Consensus Classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias makes extensive use of genomic data. The aim of this report is to help physicians and laboratorians implement genomic testing for diagnosis, risk stratification, and clinical decision making and illustrates the potential of genomic profiling for enabling personalized medicine in patients with hematologic neoplasms.

Abstract The classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias was last updated in 2016 within a collaboration between the World Health Organization (WHO), the Society for Hematopathology, and the European Association for Haematopathology. This collaboration was primarily based on input from a clinical advisory committees (CACs) composed of pathologists, hematologists, oncologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians from around the world. The recent advances in our understanding of the biology of hematologic malignancies, the experience with the use of the 2016 WHO classification in clinical practice, and the results of clinical trials have indicated the need for further revising and updating the classification. As a continuation of this CAC-based process, the authors, a group with expertise in the clinical, pathologic, and genetic aspects of these disorders, developed the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias. Using a multiparameter approach, the main objective of the consensus process was the definition of real disease entities, including the introduction of new entities and refined criteria for existing diagnostic categories, based on accumulated data. The ICC is aimed at facilitating diagnosis and prognostication of these neoplasms, improving treatment of affected patients, and allowing the design of innovative clinical trials.

AbstractThe current study was approached with the assumption that response to induction chemotherapy, in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), overshadows pre‐treatment risk variables in predicting survival and therefore be used as an anchor for a simplified risk model. We considered 759 intensively‐treated patients with AML, not promyelocytic: median age 60 years; primary 66%, secondary 25%, and therapy‐related 9%; European LeukemiaNet cytogenetic risk category favorable 8%, intermediate 61%, and adverse 31%. Complete remission with (CR) or without (CRi) count recovery was achieved in 608 (80%) patients. After a median follow‐up of 22 months, 503 deaths, 272 relapses, and 257 allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (AHSCTs) were recorded. Multivariable analysis identified failure to achieve CR/CRi (HR 3.8, 95% CI 3.1–4.8), adverse karyotype (2.2, 1.8–2.8), and age >55 years (2.1, 1.6–2.7) as main risk factors for survival. HR‐weighted scoring resulted in four‐tiered risk stratification: low (0 points; N = 183), intermediate‐1 (1 point; N = 331), intermediate‐2 (2 points; N = 117), and high (≥3 points; N = 128), with respective median survival (5‐year rate) not reached (68%), 34 (37%), 13 (20%), and 5 (5%) months (p < .001). FLT3‐ITD mutation was associated with inferior survival in intermediate‐1 (p = .004) and TP53 in intermediate‐2 (p = .06) and high (p = .02) risk disease; the latter was fully accounted for by the close association between TP53 mutation and complex/monosomal karyotype while the observations regarding FLT3‐ITD were not affected by treatment with midostaurin. AHSCT had a favorable impact on survival, most apparent in intermediate‐1 (p < .001), intermediate‐2 (p = .03), and high (p = .01) risk disease. The proposed 3‐factor survival model offers a novel prototype that is amenable to further enhancement by molecular information and was validated in an external cohort of 1032 intensively‐treated AML patients.

7053 Background: Mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 ( IDH1) occur in ̃3% of patients (pts) with MDS and are associated with increased transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Ivosidenib (IVO), an oral, potent, targeted inhibitor of the mutant IDH1 (mIDH1) enzyme, is FDA approved for m IDH1 R/R AML and m IDH1 newly diagnosed AML in pts ≥75 years old or with comorbidities precluding the use of intensive induction chemotherapy. In the first-in-human study of IVO in pts with m IDH1 advanced hematologic malignancies (NCT02074839), 12 pts with R/R MDS received IVO 500 mg once daily (QD). Based on encouraging safety and efficacy findings, including an investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) of 75%, with median response duration of 21.4 months, the FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy designation to IVO in m IDH1 R/R MDS and the study was amended to enroll additional pts. We report updated results. Methods: This substudy of the single-arm, open-label study of IVO evaluated pts with R/R MDS after documented failure or relapse following prior standard therapy including intensive chemotherapy and hypomethylating agents. Other key eligibility criteria included: high disease burden based on IPSS or IPSS-R risk at baseline; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–2; and no prior IDH1 inhibitor therapy. Pts received IVO 500 mg QD orally on days 1–28 of 28-day cycles. Results: As of 08May2021, 16 pts with R/R MDS were enrolled: 5 (31%) pts remained on treatment and free from leukemic transformation; 11 (69%) had discontinued including 6 for disease progression, 1 for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, and 1 owing to an adverse event (AE) of sepsis (the only fatal AE; reported by investigator as not related to IVO). AEs are summarized in the Table. 2 pts each experienced differentiation syndrome (grade 2) and QTcF prolongation (grade 1 and 2). 7/16 pts achieved complete response (CR, 44%; 95% CI, 20%, 70%), 1 achieved partial response (6%), and 5 achieved marrow CR (31%), resulting in an ORR of 81% (95% CI, 54%, 96%). Hematologic improvement in ≥1 lineages was achieved by 11/16 (69%) pts. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of duration of CR+PR at 12 months was 60%. 3 pts experienced CRs lasting 24.0, 63.7, and 65.4 months, which remain ongoing. 5/7 pts (71%) who were transfusion dependent at baseline became independent of red blood cell or platelet transfusions for 56 or more consecutive days on treatment. Additional translational data are being analyzed. Conclusions: In pts with m IDH1 R/R MDS, IVO monotherapy was tolerable and induced durable remissions and transfusion independence. These findings support the role of IVO as an effective, oral, targeted treatment for pts with m IDH1 R/R MDS. Clinical trial information: NCT02074839. [Table: see text]

AbstractThe progress with intensive chemotherapy and supportive care measures has improved survival in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Given the recent development of effective low intensity therapies, an optimal decision on the therapy intensity may improve survival through the avoidance of early mortality. We reviewed the outcome of 3728 patients with newly diagnosed AML who received intensive chemotherapy between August 1980 and May 2020. Intensive chemotherapy was defined as a cumulative cytarabine dose ≥ 700 mg/m2 during induction therapy. We divided the whole cohort into a training and validation group at a 3:1 ratio. The population was divided into a training (2790 patients) and a validation cohort (938 patients). The median age was 55 years (range, 15‐99). Among them, 442 patients (12%) had core‐binding factor AML. Binary logistic regression identified older age, worse performance status, hyperbilirubinemia, elevated creatinine, hyperuricemia, cytogenetic abnormalities other than CBF and ‐Y, and pneumonia as adverse prognostic factors for an early 4‐week mortality. This risk classification for early mortality was verified in the validation cohort of patients. In the validation cohort of more recently treated patients from 2000 to 2017, the 4‐week mortality rates with intensive chemotherapy were 2%, 14%, and 50% in the low‐, high‐, and very high‐risk group, respectively. The mortality rates with low intensity therapies were 3%, 9%, and 20%, respectively. The risk classification guides treatment intensity by the assessment of age, frailty, organ dysfunction, cytogenetic abnormality, and infection to avoid early mortality.