Savona, Michael R.

SummaryThe age‐associated mutational state of clonal haematopoiesis (CH) is linked to multiple adverse health outcomes. As higher risk CH can lead to progressive neoplastic or vascular disease, there is interest in developing clinical trials to mitigate risk associated with CH. Given the high prevalence of CH, data from clinical trials could have broad public health implications for screening and therapy. Thoughtful consideration is needed to design trials that are both clinically relevant and avoid overmedicalization. Here, we summarize clinical studies of CH to date and provide suggestions and guidance on how to approach designing CH‐focused therapeutic clinical trials. These recommendations are derived from discussions among clinical researchers and scientists emanating from the Inaugural Meeting on Somatic Mutations and Predisease in October 2021.

Introduction The International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and its revised version (IPSS-R) were developed using datasets from patients (pts) with untreated MDS. The cytogenetic risk groups used in IPSS-R were expanded to 5 groups from the 3 used in IPSS. Among the new groups introduced in IPSS-R is the “very complex” karyotype (VCK) where ≥4 karyotypic abnormalities are seen compared to “complex karyotype (CK)” with only 3 abnormalities. However, the prognostic impact of VCK vs CK, as well as individual cytogenetic abnormalities and TP53 mutation (TP53mut) status within the CK and VCK subgroups in pts with MDS treated with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) has not been well studied. Hence, we analyzed these questions in a large cohort of HMA-treated MDS pts in the icMDS VALIDATE database. Methods The icMDS VALIDATE database contains MDS pts treated with frontline HMA monotherapy or HMA-based combinations from 22 specialized international centers. Pts with unknown HMA type, date of HMA initiation, missing age, missing sex, missing cytogenetic data, bone marrow or peripheral blood blasts ≥20%, or missing survival status were excluded. We performed time-to-event analyses using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared groups by the log-rank test. We measured overall survival (OS) from time of HMA initiation. VALIDATE protocol was exempted, acknowledged, or approved by all centers' IRBs. VALIDATE is supported by an independent grant from Abbvie. Results A total of 1940 pts were included. Median age was 70 (range: 18-99) years and 66% were men. According to IPSS-R cytogenetic risk groups, 1.9% (37) were very good, 43.4% (841) good, 15.5% (301) intermediate, 11.6% (226) poor, and 27.6% (535) very poor. By HMA type, 71% of pts were treated with azacitidine, 14% with decitabine, 6% with HMA and venetoclax, and 9% with another HMA combination. Approximately 28% of pts underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT). The IPSS-R cytogenetic risk groups had different OS (p<0.001)with median OS (mOS; months [mo], 95% CI) as follows: very good (43.4, 34.7-72.5), good (41.7, 36.4-46.8), intermediate (24.5, 23.1-32.4), poor (24.2, 19.2-28.5), and very poor (13.6, 12.5-14.5). The difference remained significant (p=0.001) after censoring at time of alloHSCT with mOS as follows: very good (40.4, 23.2-64.3), good (24.3, 22.2-26.3), intermediate (19.3, 15.1-22.2), poor (12.2, 10.3-14.8), and very poor (9.1, 8.2-19.7). Interestingly, the difference between mOS for intermediate and poor risk cytogenetics became more apparent after censoring at time of alloHSCT. Next, we compared the outcomes of pts with CK and VCK to non-complex karyotype (NCK) MDS. The mOS for pts with VCK MDS (13.6 mo, 12.5-14.5) was worse compared to pts with CK (19.9 mo, 19.9-16.8; p=0.004) and NCK (36.1 mo, 32.7-37.8; p<0.001) MDS. Among the 1458 pts with available molecular data, more pts with VCK (75%, 330) MDS had a concurrent TP53mut compared to pts with CK (40%, 21; p<0.001) and NCK (7%, 64 p<0.001) MDS. Considering only patients with TP53mut MDS, mOS for pts with VCK (12.2, 11.1-13.9) was worse compared with NCK (24.2, 16-1-53.1; p<0.001) but not with CK (19.9, 9.5-NR; p=0.9); the difference between CK and NCK was not significant (p=0.16). Among pts with TP53 wildtype (TP53WT) MDS, VCK (15.0, 13.2-18.2) had a similar mOS to TP53WT CK (18.8, 12.6-41.1; p=0.19) while both groups had worse mOS compared to TP53WT NCK (33.4, 30.1-37.0) (p=0.01). In a survival analysis of 616 pts with MDS with ≥3 cytogenetic abnormalities, -17/del(17p) (12.8 mo; p=0.009), inv(3)/t(3q)/del(3q) (10.9 mo; p=0.006), and del(7q) (12.1mo; p=0.024), though not -7 (12.6mo; p=0.23), were associated with lower mOS compared to the pts with MDS without these abnormalities (14.3mo). Conclusions Using one of the largest databases of HMA-treated MDS pts, we show that IPSS-R cytogenetic risk categories associate with significantly different survivals among HMA-treated MDS pts, even after censoring at time of alloHSCT. Importantly, VCK MDS was associated with worse mOS compared to CK and NCK MDS but not in pts with a concurrent TP53mut. Among pts with MDS with ≥3 chromosomal abnormalities, having -17/del(17p), inv(3)/t(3q)/del(3q), or del(7q) was associated with worse survival.

Introduction: Response assessment is used to evaluate effectiveness of hypomethylating agent (HMA)-based therapy in myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) in clinical practice and trials. Recently, the clinical response criteria (IWG 2023) and the clinical-molecular risk assessment (IPSS-M) in MDS were published. However, it remains unknown whether the IWG 2023 response criteria have an independent impact on overall survival (OS) when adjusting for baseline IPSS-M risk. Additionally, the association of IWG 2023 response criteria with OS in patients (pts) undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) versus those who do not is unknown. Lastly, it is unclear if optimal time-to-transplant impacts OS in MDS pts who achieve a IWG 2023 defined remission with HMA therapy. We examined these questions in a large population of MDS pts within the multi-institutional international consortium for MDS (icMDS) VALIDATE database. Methods: High-risk MDS pts with IPSS ≥1.5 or IPSS-R >3.5 treated with HMA-based therapy were included in the study. Baseline IPSS-M risk was stratified into very low/low/moderate low (VL+L+ML), moderate-high/high (MH+H), and very high (VH). Response to treatment was evaluated using the IWG 2023 criteria and grouped into: composite complete response (cCR) and no cCR. cCR included: complete response (CR), CR equivalent (CRequ), CR bilineage (CRbi), CR unilineage (CRuni), and CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh). We analyzed the differential impact of achieving cCR on HMA-based therapy prior to transplant on OS in pts who either did or did not undergo allo-HCT, while adjusting for their baseline IPSS-M risk in Cox regression analysis. Optimal time-to-transplant was determined based on age and IPSS-M category as described by Tentori et al. (JCO 2024). Pts proceeding to allo-HCT were stratified on whether they underwent transplant within the optimal time-to-transplant timeframe after MDS diagnosis or not. VALIDATE protocol was exempted, acknowledged, or approved by all centers' IRBs. VALIDATE is supported by an independent grant from AbbVie. Results: We analyzed 762 MDS pts. The median age at MDS diagnosis was 68 years (range: 19-95 years) and 64% of pts were male. Distribution of the baseline IPSS-M risk was: VL+L+ML in 110 (14%) pts, MH+H in 347 (46%) pts, VH in 305 (40%) pts. Pts received azacitidine monotherapy, decitabine monotherapy, and HMA-based combination therapy (e.g. HMA + venetoclax) in 52%, 21%, and 28% of cases, respectively. A total of 282/762 (37%) pts achieved cCR as their best response to HMA-based therapy. The median OS for all pts was 18.7 months (95% CI: 16.6-21.3 months). Pts who did not undergo allo-HCT (n=436, 57%) had an improved median OS if they achieved cCR when compared to pts in the no cCR group in all IPSS-M risk groups (VL+L+ML: 23.5 months vs. 10.7 months; MH+H: 20.8 months vs. 11.6 months; VH: 13.8 months vs. 7.5 months). Cox analysis demonstrated an independent effect of cCR on OS in these pts when adjusted for baseline IPSS-M risk (cCR vs. no cCR: HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48-0.76, p<0.001). In contrast, in pts who subsequently received an allo-HCT (n=326, 43%), achieving cCR with HMA prior to allo-HCT did not provide an additional OS benefit, when adjusted for baseline IPSS-M risk (cCR vs. no cCR: HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73-1.38, p=0.986). The median time-to-transplant was 6.7 months and 34% of transplanted MDS pts received their allo-HCT during the optimal timeframe. Among pts who achieved cCR with HMA-based therapy prior to allo-HCT, optimal time-to-transplant was associated with significantly improved OS (optimal vs. non-optimal timing: HR 0.55; p=0.033). Conclusion: Baseline IPSS-M risk and allo-HCT had an independent impact on OS, while IWG 2023 defined cCR had an independent effect on OS only in non-transplanted MDS pts. While this retrospective analysis occurred at large academic centers with specific expertise in the management of MDS, our data may have an impact on clinical practice: (i) failure to achieve cCR on HMA therapy prior to transplant should not impact the decision to proceed to allo-HCT, (ii) upfront allo-HCT without prior HMA therapy might also be an option if the clinical situation and availability of donors allow, and (iii) allo-HCT should ideally be performed during the timeframe that is considered optimal as defined by pt age and baseline IPSS-M.

Abstract Clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) represents a distinct disease entity characterized by myeloid-related somatic mutations with a variant allele fraction of ≥2% in individuals with unexplained cytopenia(s) but without a myeloid neoplasm (MN). Notably, CCUS carries a risk of progressing to MN, particularly in cases featuring high-risk mutations. Understanding CCUS requires dedicated studies to elucidate its risk factors and natural history. Our analysis of 357 patients with CCUS investigated the interplay between clonality, cytopenia, and prognosis. Multivariate analysis identified 3 key adverse prognostic factors: the presence of splicing mutation(s) (score = 2 points), platelet count of <100 × 109/L (score = 2.5), and ≥2 mutations (score = 3). Variable scores were based on the coefficients from the Cox proportional hazards model. This led to the development of the clonal cytopenia risk score (CCRS), which stratified patients into low- (score of <2.5 points), intermediate- (score of 2.5 to <5), and high-risk (score of ≥5) groups. The CCRS effectively predicted 2-year cumulative incidence of MN for low- (6.4%), intermediate- (14.1%), and high-risk (37.2%) groups, respectively, by the Gray test (P < .0001). We further validated the CCRS by applying it to an independent CCUS cohort of 104 patients, demonstrating a c-index of 0.64 (P = .005) in stratifying the cumulative incidence of MN. Our study underscores the importance of integrating clinical and molecular data to assess the risk of CCUS progression, making the CCRS a valuable tool that is practical and easily calculable. These findings are clinically relevant, shaping the management strategies for CCUS and informing future clinical trial designs.

Background: Myelodysplastic/Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MDS/MPN) represent a group of rare hematologic malignancies, distinguished by their concurrent dysplastic and proliferative features. Patients with these neoplasms have an increased risk of acute leukemia transformation and often present with extramedullary and constitutional symptoms. The only approved therapies for MDS/MPNs are hydroxyurea, decitabine (oral decitabine/cedazuridine and parenteral decitabine) or azacitidine (parenteral) for pts with CMML. Given the rarity and the heterogeneity of MDS/MPNs, prospective studies focusing specifically on MDS/MPN have been uncommon, and refining treatment strategies has been difficult. ABNL-MARRO ( A Basket study of Nove l therapy for untreated MDS/MPN and Relapsed/ Refractory Overlap Syndromes) is an international cooperative effort that leverages the expertise of the MDS/MPN International Working Group (IWG) and provides a framework for collaborative studies around the world to advance treatment of MDS/MPN and to explore clinical and pathologic markers of disease severity, prognosis, and treatment response (Moyo TK et.al BMC Cancer. 2022). Methods: ABNL-MARRO 001 (AM-001) is an open-label, phase 1b/2 study testing the treatment combination of ASTX727 (days 1-5), a fixed dose oral combination pill containing 35 mg of the DNMTi decitabine (DEC) and 100 mg of the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine (CED), together with a series of active agents in myeloid disease (see Figure 1a) for MDS/MPN. In arm A, ASTX727 is combined with itacitinib 300 mg (days 1-28), a selective JAK1 inhibitor in newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory (R/R) pts. Here we report results from the 3+3 dose de-escalation phase 1b portion used to determine the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) in arm A. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed in cycle 1. Disease response was assessed by the MDS/MPN IWG response criteria (Savona et.al., Blood. 2015). Results: Seven patients were enrolled with a median age 75 (range 32-82) years with newly diagnosed (4 pts) or R/R (3 pts) MDS/MPN. Three patients had CMML, 2 had MDS/MPN-U, and 2 had refractory MDS/MPN RST. One patient was not DLT evaluable given severe disease-induced cytopenia, and was not included in the assessment (patient 4 in Figure 1b). The majority of pts experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of any grade; the most common (≥30% of pts) were thrombocytopenia (50%), neutropenia (30%), and constipation (30%); 50% of pts experienced a Grade ≥3 TEAE; the most common was neutropenia (30%). No DLTs were reported, and these AEs were consistent with what has been reported in the use of ASTX727 (Savona et al. Blood. 2022). One patient achieved a CR, and two additional patients had the best overall response of optimal marrow response after receiving 6 cycles of treatment. All patients are alive with a median follow-up of 12 months (range 6-17 months). The clinical responses and time-on-treatment of all pts in phase 1b are summarized in Figure 1b. Summary/Conclusion: Based on the preliminary results of the phase 1b study, the dosing schedule of 35 mg DEC / 100 mg CED daily for 5 days in combination with itacitinib 300 mg daily for 28 days was selected as the RP2D as it balanced clinical efficacy with an acceptable and manageable safety profile. This regimen and dose are being utilized in a 28-day cycle in the ongoing global, multi-center phase 2 study (NCT04061421).

Introduction: Despite governmental and industry-sponsored efforts, clinical trial participation among rural residents and racial and ethnic minorities remains low. The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 directed the NIH to establish guidelines for inclusion of women and minorities in clinical research. In 2015, the Food and Drug Administration launched an action plan to improve the quality of demographic subgroup data collection, identify barriers to enrollment, employ strategies to increase participation, and promote transparency of related data. However subsequent studies (Green et al. Health Aff. March 2022, Kanapuru et al. Blood Advances. March 2022.) showed no improvement in participation of racial minorities, including Blacks and Hispanics since this plan was enacted. Various complex system- and individual-based factors, including lack of clinical trial availability; lack of diversity in the investigator work force; scant patient and provider awareness of clinical trials; lack of trust in the health care system; and issues with access to care-often driven by financial, geographic, or social constraints (Allison et al. Cureus. Apr 2022.), and stringent eligibility criteria are deemed responsible. The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) IMPACT (Influential Medicine Providing Access to Clinical Trials) research grant strives to bridge this unrelenting care gap. Methods: The LLS IMPACT program includes a 5-year research grant which was launched in 2021. The IMPACT grants support the establishment of clinical trial networks involving academic cancer centers (“Hubs”) linked to community clinics and oncology centers (“Spokes”). The program's overall goal is to provide patients access to trials through participation at the community sites. Initially, 3 institutional sites were selected to participate. These institutions had unique and tailored strategies to improve engagement of underrepresented patients, including black, indigenous, people of color, Hispanic, Latina/Latino, and people from rural communities in vastly different climates and local cultures. The IMPACT grant expanded to encompass 4 additional sites given the imminent needs and clamor of the hematology clinical trials community (Figure 1A). The catchment areas and strategies employed at each institution are summarized in the table (Figure 1B). Results: At the start of the grant period, focus was on building clinical research infrastructure and opening non-interventional clinical trials to teach personnel about clinical research and create relationships with patients. Other programs such as webinar series, tumor boards, technological advancements, and educational workshops were also established to enhance engagement among physicians, match patients to clinical trials, and to provide clinical trial education to potential patients. One trial that has seen early success is the CHIVE IMPACT trial, a non-interventional registry and biorepository which has enrolled 24 patients at a rural and underserved site as of July 2023. The purpose of CHIVE is to enroll patients who have clonal hematopoiesis (CH) or are at risk of CH and follow prospectively in efforts to understand risk of progression and potential for early intervention. The Universal Protocol is another biorepository trial which has more than tripled its enrollment number at a community site between 2021 and 2022. Of the 63 patients enrolled in 2022, 66% of them identified as a race other than White. As our core goal is to increase access to interventional trials, we hope to bring industry sponsored phase II and phase III studies to underrepresented areas that serve a broad patient population. Lack of financial resources, lack of transportation and distance to trial sites, and residual distrust of the medical community (e.g., legacy of Tuskegee experiments) are barriers the grantees are focused on overcoming to enroll the intended populations into clinical trials. Conclusion: The innovative strategies employed to expand access to clinical trials for underrepresented population at the various institutions through the LLS's IMPACT research grant can be utilized during clinical trials design and implementation phases to improve generalizability of clinical trials in hematologic malignancies. In the third year of this program, 7 participating sites are engaging impactful strategies (Figure 1B) which will be reported at the end of the grant period.

Background. The inclusion of gene mutations and chromosomal abnormalities in the 2022 WHO and ICC Classifications of MDS has enhanced diagnostic precision and is expected to improve clinical decision-making process. Although these two systems share similarities, clinically relevant discrepancies still exist and potentially cause inconsistency in their adoption in a clinical setting. In this study on behalf of the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS), we adopted a data-driven approach to provide a harmonization roadmap between the 2022 WHO and ICC classification for MDS. A modified Delphi Process consensus approach is currently ongoing among icMDS experts to finalize a harmonized MDS classification scheme. Methods. We analyzed retrospective international cohorts of patients with a diagnosis of MDS (n=7017) and AML (n=1002) according to WHO 2016 criteria. Hierarchical Dirichlet Processes were applied to define clusters capturing broad dependencies among all gene mutations and cytogenetic abnormalities. To investigate the features of importance and their impact on the clustering process, we employed the SHapley Additive exPlanations approach (SHAP). This allowed to define harmonized labels for each clinical entity. The clinical relevance of the unsupervised clustering was assessed through the analysis of phenotypic features and outcomes among each group. ( Blood 2022;140: 9828-9830) Results. Patients' characteristics are summarized in Table 1. We identified 9 clusters, defined by specific genomic features. The cluster of highest hierarchical importance was characterized by biallelic inactivation of TP53 (biTP53). According to SHAP analysis, bi TP53 was defined as 2 or more TP53 mutations, or 1 mutation with copy number loss or cnLOH. Most patients assigned to bi TP53 cluster had TP53 VAF>10% (77.9%) and complex karyotype (70.1%). Assignment to bi TP53 cluster was irrespective of blast count. Patients with monoallelic TP53 mutation segregated into other clusters. Hierarchically, the second cluster included patients with del(5q). SHAP analysis highlighted 5q deletion alone, or with one other chromosomal abnormality other than -7, and absence of bi TP53, as the most relevant features. Most of these patients had blast counts <5% (88.1%). The third distinct cluster included patients with SF3B1 mutations (in the absence of concurrent del(7q), abn3q26.2, complex karyotype or RUNX1 mutation). Most patients with MDS and SF3B1 mutation had <5% blasts (94.2%). Common co-mutated variants in the SF3B1 cluster included mutant DNMT3A (25.2%) and TET2 (38.3%). Morphologically defined MDS cases (i.e., not meeting criteria for bi TP53, del(5q) or SF3B1) were preferentially assigned to the following additional clusters: SF3B1 and concurrent higher-risk mutations (e.g., RUNX1 and ASXL1); SRSF2 and concomitant TET2 mutations; U2AF1 mutations with del(20q), del(7q) or -7; SRSF2 with TET2 mutations and co-mutational patterns including RUNX1 and ASXL1; and AML-like genomic signatures. Our analyses suggest that morphologically defined MDS is characterized by a large heterogeneity in terms of mutation profiles, not entirely captured by the presence of unilineage versus multilineage dysplasia, percentage of bone marrow blasts, and presence of hypocellularity and fibrosis. To better investigate the continuum between high risk MDS (i.e., patients with ≥10% blasts) and AML, an exploratory comparison was made using a cohort of AML (defined according to WHO 2016) patients analyzed using the same statistical methods. Only a partial overlap in genetic signatures was observed between MDS with ≥10% blasts and AML. However, similarities were observed between the AML-like MDS clusters (characterized by mutant NPM1, bZIP CEBPA, and Core Binding Factor abnormalities) and AML clusters defined by the same genetic signature, thus supporting the classification of these entities as AML, irrespective of blast count. Conclusion. Our study demonstrated the utility of a data-driven approach based on advanced statistical methods to generate a harmonized classification for MDS. Table 2 shows a provisional, hierarchical classification algorithm. Further refinement of entity labels and classification criteria is the subject of the ongoing modified Delphi Process consensus approach among icMDS experts.

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.