Chien, Kelly S.

Introduction Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) can be classified into dysplastic (dCMML) and proliferative (pCMML) subtypes based on a white blood cell count (WBC) ≥ 13 x 10 9/L for pCMML. Though this cutoff may seem arbitrary, there is evidence that pCMML is a unique biological entity with a distinct molecular profile and worse outcomes (Carr RM, et al. Nat Commun. 2021). We hypothesized that contemporary CMML prognostic scoring systems - such as the Mayo Molecular Model (MMM; Patnaik MM, et al. Leukemia. 2014) and the CPSS-Molecular Model (CMM; Elena C, et al. Blood. 2016) - would not adequately risk-stratify pCMML patients. Moreover, while truncating ASXL1 mutations are considered a high-risk feature in CMML, their prognostic relevance in pCMML is unknown. Methods After IRB approval, we compiled a large (n = 888), molecularly-annotated database of CMML patients seen at two US medical centers (Mayo Clinic and MD Anderson) via retrospective chart review. All statistical analyses considered the clinical and laboratory parameters obtained at the time of presentation. The cohort was divided into dCMML and pCMML subgroups, which were analyzed independently alongside the entire cohort. Categorical variables were compared by Fisher exact or Pearson χ 2 tests and continuous variables by Mann-Whitney U tests. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Survival was assessed via the Kaplan-Meier method. P-values < 0.05 were considered significant. Calculations were performed using the BlueSky Statistics (v10.3.1) interface for R. Results We identified 474 (54%) dCMML cases and 410 (46%) pCMML cases with median age 71 years and 67% males. Patients with pCMML were more likely to have higher AMC (5.1 vs 1.5 x 10 9/L, p < 0.0001), circulating immature myeloid cells (IMC; 65% vs 36%, p < 0.0001) and abnormal karyotypes (37% vs 30%, p = 0.0187). They were also overrepresented in higher-risk categories of the MMM and CMM compared to dCMML (p < 0.0001 for each model). The number of somatic mutations was higher in pCMML than dCMML (mean 3.0 vs 2.6, p = 0.0050). Mutations in ASXL1 (53% vs 39%), NRAS (21% vs 11%), CBL (18% vs 12%), SETBP1 (14% vs 7%), JAK2 (10% vs 3%), CEBPA (5% vs 2%), GATA2 (3% vs 0%), and FLT3 (3% vs 1%) were more frequent while mutations in TET2 (38% vs 48%), SF3B1 (2% vs 8%), ZRSR2 (2% vs 8%), and NPM1 (1% vs 3%) were less frequent in pCMML compared to dCMML, respectively (p < 0.05 for all). Though the MMM and CMM effectively stratified the dCMML group, they did not provide meaningful risk stratification in the pCMML group (MMM p < 0.05 overall but could not distinguish between low and intermediate-1/2 or intermediate-1 and high risks; CMM p > 0.05). Likewise, there was no difference in the median overall survival (OS) or leukemia free survival (LFS) when pCMML patients were stratified by truncating ASXL1 mutations( Figure 1A). We then sought to better risk stratify pCMML. Univariate analysis identified increasing age, male gender, abnormal karyotype, and elevated WBC, ANC, and AMC as adverse predictors for OS. In addition, the presence of IMC and peripheral blood (PB) blast % were adverse factors for LFS, while age was not significant for LFS. None of the aforementioned mutations were significant in the univariate model for OS, whereas GATA2 and NPM1 mutations were significant for LFS. In multivariate analysis for OS, only male gender and AMC ≥ 10 x 10 9/L retained significance. In multivariate analysis for LFS, male gender, AMC ≥ 10 x 10 9/L, and peripheral blasts ≥ 5% remained significant; GATA2 and NPM1 mutations were not significant. These variables risk-stratified pCMML patients based on the presence of 0, 1, or ≥ 2 risk factors ( Figure 1B). In comparison, OS was 40.7 months (95% CI 35.2 - 50.1 mo.) for dCMML patients, 20.1 months (95% CI 18.2 - 22.7 mo.) for pCMML patients, and 31.8 months (95% CI 28.4 - 33.5 mo.) for the entire cohort. At last follow up, 586 deaths (66%) and 168 AML transformations (19%) were recorded in the cohort. Deaths in dCMML vs pCMML were 294 (62%) vs 291 (71%; p = 0.0067), with AML transformations in 83 (18%) vs 84 (21%; p = 0.2055) patients, respectively. Conclusions Truncating ASXL1 mutations, along with ASXL1-mutation weighted CMML prognostic models failed to effectively risk stratify pCMML patients. In pCMML, male gender and AMC ≥ 10 x 10 9/L, effectively risk stratified for OS, while these factors along with PB blasts ≥ 5% effectively risk stratified for LFS.

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.

Introduction Truncating ASXL1 mutations in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) are associated with inferior overall survival (OS) and leukemia free survival (LFS). Conversely, loss-of-function mutations in TET2 are associated with better outcomes, with the ASXL1wt/ TET2mut genotype being associated with the best OS and LFS-rates (Coltro G, et al. Leukemia. 2020). Contemporary CMML prognostic scoring systems - such as the Mayo Molecular Model (MMM; Patnaik MM, et al. Leukemia. 2014) and the CPSS-Molecular Model (CMM; Elena C, et al. Blood. 2016) - do not consider concomitant ASXL1/ TET2 mutational status or mutational VAF. We hypothesized that the ASXL1/ TET2 genotype would better risk stratify patients in comparison to ASXL1 mutations alone, and that this effect would be proportional to the underlying mutational VAF. Methods After IRB approval, we compiled a large (n = 888), molecularly annotated database of CMML patients seen at two US medical centers (Mayo Clinic and MD Anderson) via retrospective chart review. All statistical analyses considered the clinical and laboratory parameters obtained at the time of presentation to the respective institution. Categorical variables were compared by Fisher exact or Pearson χ 2 tests and continuous variables by Mann-Whitney U tests. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Survival was assessed via the Kaplan-Meier method. P-values < 0.05 were considered significant. All statistical calculations were performed using the BlueSky Statistics (v10.3.1) interface for R. Results The median age of the cohort was 71 years (range 20 - 94), 67% were male, 46% had proliferative CMML (pCMML), and 19% had CMML-2. The distribution of low, intermediate-1, intermediate-2, and high-risk patients was 15%, 11%, 32%, and 42% by the MMM and 9%, 23%, 40%, and 28% by the CMM, respectively. The most frequently mutated genes were ASXL1 (45%), TET2 (43%), SRSF2 (41%), and RUNX1 (17%), while 40% harbored at least one RAS pathway mutation ( NRAS 16%, CBL 15%, KRAS 8%, PTPN11 4%, FLT3 2%). The median OS and LFS of the entire cohort were 31.8 months (95% CI 28.4 - 33.5 months) and 28.4 months (95% CI 24.6 - 32.1 months), respectively. Patients were stratified into ASXL1wt/ TET2wt (28%), ASXL1mut/ TET2wt (29%), ASXL1wt/ TET2mut (26%), and ASXL1mut/ TET2mut (17%) genotypes. Those with isolated TET2 mutations had the longest median OS (53.6 months; p < 0.02 for all comparisons) whereas those with isolated ASXL1 mutations had the shortest median OS (20.9 months; p < 0.04 for all comparisons); mutations in neither or both genes performed similarly (p = 0.9224; Figure 1A). The same trend was seen for LFS. We further hypothesized that the ASXL1 or TET2 mutation VAF would be more predictive of outcomes than a binary metric. The respective median VAFs were 37% (quartiles 28% - 45%) and 45% (quartiles 40% - 49%). When treated as a continuous variable, however, there was no correlation between either VAF and OS or LFS by both Pearson linear regression and Cox proportional hazard modeling. Unlike the overall cohort, the ASXL1/ TET2 genotypes did not further stratify patients with pCMML, CMML-2, or those considered high risk by the CMM in Kaplan-Meier analyses, suggesting that the high-risk features inherent in these subgroups outweigh the benefits of the TET2 mutation. In contrast, patients considered high-risk by the MMM were further stratified by the ASXL1/ TET2 genotypes. Incorporating TET2 mutations into the MMM as a protective factor (worth -1.5 points) improved detection of low- (≤ 1 point) and high-risk (≥ 4 points) patients, while intermediate-1 and intermediate-2 coalesced into a single intermediate risk category ( Figure 1B). A similar phenomenon was observed when TET2 was incorporated into the CMM (worth -1 point, yielding low- (0 points), intermediate- (1-2 points), and high-risk (≥ 3 points) groups with median OS of 83 months (95% CI 66.2 - 104.2), 34.3 months (95% CI 31.6 - 38.7), and 17.7 months (95% CI 15.7 - 20.2), respectively. Conclusions Truncating and hypomorphic TET2 mutations are associated with better outcomes in CMML, with the ASXL1mut/ TET2wt genotype being associated with improved risk stratification in comparison to ASXL1 mutational status alone. Counterintuitively, in our data set, this stratification was not impacted by mutational VAF, supporting binary mutational assessments in prognostic models.

Abstract Background: Trabectedin is an FDA-approved DNA minor groove binder (MGB) that has activity against translocation-associated sarcomas. Lurbinectedin is a next-generation MGB with pre-clinical activity against myeloid leukemia cells. A dose-finding phase 1 clinical trial was performed in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with further assessment of safety and tolerability. Methods: Forty-two patients with relapsed/refractory AML/MDS received lurbinectedin administered as a 1-hour intravenous infusion in a 3+3 study design. Two dosing schedules were used: 3.5 mg, 5 mg, 7 mg, or 6 mg on days 1 and 8 or 2 mg, 3 mg, 1 mg, or 1.5 mg for 3 consecutive days on days 1 to 3. Patients 18 years or older with a diagnosis of advanced, relapsed/refractory AML (non-acute promyelocytic leukemia) and MDS were eligible and treated on study. Eligible patients had adequate hepatic, renal, and cardiac function and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 2. Patients with uncontrolled infection, human immunodeficiency virus, cardiac and neurological disorders, or those who were pregnant were ineligible. Clinical trial information: NCT01314599. Results: Three patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities of rhabdomyolysis (grade 4), hyperbilirubinemia (grade 3), and oral herpes (grade 3) with the days 1 and 8 schedule. Otherwise, adverse events mainly consisted of gastrointestinal manifestations (n=11), febrile neutropenia/infections (n=4), pulmonary toxicity (n=2), and renal failure (n=2). The most common laboratory abnormalities observed were an increase in creatinine (93%) and anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia (100%). Overall, 33 of 42 patients (79%) had reduction in blasts in peripheral blood or bone marrow. One patient achieved a partial response and two patients a morphologic leukemia-free state. Most (n=30, 71%) were discontinued due to progressive disease. Early deaths occurred from disease-related causes that were not attributable to lurbinectedin. Four patients with a chromosome 11q21-23 abnormality had significantly greater bone marrow blast reduction than those without such abnormality, with decrease of 31±14% (n=4) vs. 8±8% (n=16), respectively (P=0.04). Conclusions: Overall, lurbinectedin was safe and tolerated using the schedules and dose levels tested. While no sustained remissions were observed, single-agent lurbinectedin was transiently leukemia suppressive for some patients. Disclosures Rodríguez: PharmaMar: Employment. Ravandi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Abbvie: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Orsenix: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Orsenix: Honoraria; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Sunesis: Honoraria. Daver:Sunesis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy; Kiromic: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; ARIAD: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Sunesis: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy. Jain:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novimmune: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologioes: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologioes: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novimmune: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Maiti:Celgene Corporation: Other: Research funding to the institution. Martinez:PharmaMar: Employment. Siguero:PharmaMar: Employment. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding.

AbstractTrabectedin is an FDA‐approved DNA minor groove binder that has activity against translocation‐associated sarcomas. Lurbinectedin is a next‐generation minor groove binder with preclinical activity against myeloid leukemia cells. A dose‐finding phase 1 clinical trial was performed in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with further assessment of safety and tolerability. Forty‐two patients with relapsed/refractory AML/MDS received lurbinectedin administered as a 1‐hour intravenous infusion in a 3 + 3 study design. Two dosing schedules were used: 3.5, 5, 7, or 6 mg on days 1 and 8 or 2, 3, 1, or 1.5 mg for 3 consecutive days on days 1 to 3. Three patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicities of rhabdomyolysis (grade 4), hyperbilirubinemia (grade 3), and oral herpes (grade 3) with the day 1 and 8 schedule. Otherwise, adverse events mainly consisted of gastrointestinal manifestations (n = 11), febrile neutropenia/infections (n = 4), pulmonary toxicity (n = 2), and renal failure (n = 2). The most common laboratory abnormalities observed were an increase in creatinine (93%) and anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia (100%). Overall, 33 of 42 patients (79%) had reduction in blasts in peripheral blood or bone marrow. One patient achieved a partial response and 2 patients a morphologic leukemia‐free state. Most (n = 30, 71%) were discontinued due to progressive disease. Early deaths occurred from disease‐related causes that were not attributable to lurbinectedin. Four patients with a chromosome 11q21‐23 abnormality had significantly greater bone marrow blast reduction than those without such abnormality, with decrease of 31 ± 14% (n = 4) vs 8 ± 8% (n = 16), respectively (P = .04). Overall, lurbinectedin was safe and tolerated using the schedules and dose levels tested. While no sustained remissions were observed, single‐agent lurbinectedin was transiently leukemia suppressive for some patients.