Alkhateeb, Hassan B.

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.

Abstract Background Letermovir (LTMV) is approved for CMV prophylaxis during the first 100 days after HSCT. Thereafter, CMV reactivation (CMVr) may still occur. This study aims to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for any CMVr and clinically significant CMV infection (csCMVi) in patients who received LTMV prophylaxis. Methods Retrospective multicenter cohort study of HSCT patients who received 100 days of LTMV prophylaxis from 08/2018 to 09/2022. Categorical and continuous variables were compared with Fisher’s exact and Kruskal-Wallis test respectively. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors. Results Of 115 HSCT patients, 28 had CMVr after LTMV prophylaxis (Table 1), including 21 with csCMVi (Table 2). Of note, 29 (25.2%) patients had breakthrough CMV during LTMV prophylaxis. Among 28 cases of post-LTMV CMVr, DNAemia occurred with a median of 38.5 (31.3 – 47) days after stopping LTMV. The median absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) at diagnosis was 1.29 (0.41 – 2.04) x109cells/L. Median peak CMV DNAemia at was 482 (100.5 – 2600) IU/mL, with a duration of 29 (20- 35) days; none had end organ disease. All were receiving immunosuppression for graft-versus-host disease treatment (n=18) or prophylaxis (n=10). Risk factors for CMVr and csCMVi are listed in Table 3. For CMVr, univariate analysis showed that CMV D-/R+ status is associated with increased risk, while having CMV D+ donors or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) had lower risk. Multivariable analysis showed D-/R+ status and breakthrough viremia while on LTMV were associated with increased risk. csCMVi in 21 patients were treated with valganciclovir (n=15) or IV ganciclovir (n=6) for a median duration of 37 (25.5 – 50) days. Univariate analysis showed that acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and reduced intensity conditioning were associated with increased risk, while AML had lower risk of csCMVi. On multivariable analysis, ALL, and D-/R+ had higher risk while AML had lower risk. Demographics and clinical characteristics of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell recipients with or without late clinically significant CMV infection Conclusion One in four allogeneic HSCT patients who received LTMV developed post-prophylaxis CMVr within 100 to 200 days post-transplant. CMV D-/R+ status had a higher risk for CMVr and csCMVi after LTMV discontinuation. Patients with AML had a lower risk for CMVr and csCMVi. Disclosures Raymund R. Razonable, MD, Allovir: Endpoint Adjudication Committee|American Society of Transplantation: Board Member|Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Novartis: DSMB|Regeneron: Grant/Research Support|Roche: Grant/Research Support

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.