Viswanatha, David S.

Abstract Background: Clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) is defined as clonal hematopoiesis in the absence of a hematologic neoplasm, along with unexplained cytopenia. While several studies have identified risk factors and developed scores to predict progression to overt myeloid neoplasms, the clinical and molecular features during the progression process remain poorly understood. Aim: Evaluate the clinical and clonal characteristics of patients with CCUS, with a focus on the longitudinal evolution of clonal and clinical parameters over time. Methods: After IRB approval, we retrospectively reviewed charts of patients with unexplained cytopenia (2015-2024), recording data at the time of CCUS diagnosis (WHO 2022 diagnostic criteria) and at time of follow-up bone marrow biopsy after diagnosis. Follow-up CBC and karyotype data were recorded for patients who had repeat bone marrow biopsies (n= 111), while follow-up clonal parameters and risk scores were calculated for those who underwent repeat NGS (n= 74). A reduction or expansion in clone size was defined as a change exceeding 5% (CE5%), or change exceeding 10% (CE10%) from the baseline value. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from diagnosis to last follow-up. For statistical analysis, we used BlueSky Statistics V10.3.1. Results: 214 CCUS patients (median age 73, 68% males) were included. At baseline, 30% of patients had abnormal cytogenetics, with del (20q) being the most common one (8%; n= 18), followed by trisomy 8 (6%; n= 13), and loss of chromosome Y (5%; n= 10). The median number of mutations was 2 (range, 1-5), with the most common mutations TET2 (38%), SRSF2 (21.5%), ASXL1 (21%), ZRSR2 (18.5%), DNMT3A (9.5%), and U2AF1 (9%). Most patients had high risk CHRS (60%), followed by intermediate (30%), and low risk (10%). On the other hand, 41% had high risk CCRS, 29% had intermediate risk, and 30% had low risk. After a median follow-up of 46 months, 62 patients died (median OS not reached). A decrease in the white blood cell (WBC) count from the time of diagnosis to follow-up was more frequently seen among CCUS patients who progressed to MN (70% vs 50%, p= 0.04), however, changes in hemoglobin and platelets did not differ between those who progressed and those who did not (p> 0.05). Although the frequency of abnormal karyotypes at diagnosis was similar between patients who eventually progressed (28%) and those who did not (31%) (p= 0.6), 4 (2%) patients with initially normal karyotypes acquired chromosomal abnormalities during follow-up, and all progressed to MDS. Among the 74 patients who had follow-up NGS, 31% acquired new mutations, clonal expansion of pre-existing mutations were seen in 54% using CE5% and 19% per CE10%, and 16% developed new variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Acquiring new pathogenic mutations was similar in patients who progressed to MN compared to those who did not progress (34% vs 28%, p= 0.6). On the other hand, clonal expansion was significantly more observed in patients who progressed compared to those who did not, using both CE5% (73% vs 31%, p = <0.001) and CE10% (27% vs 9%, p= 0.03). At follow-up, ASXL1 was the most commonly acquired mutation among patients who did not progress (4 cases), followed by TET2 (2 cases), and U2AF1, GATA2, DNMT3A, SF3B1, ZRSR2, TP53, and CBL (1 case each). On the other hand, SRSF2, SETBP1, CBL, JAK2, TET2, and RUNX1 were more frequently acquired among those who progressed to myeloid neoplasms (each appeared in 2 patients). When recalculating CCRS, CHRS, IPSS-M, and IPSS-R at follow-up for patients who had repeat NGS, there was no significant difference in score changes - either upward or downward - between those who progressed and those who did not (p> 0.05). Conclusion: In CCUS patients who progressed to myeloid neoplasms, WBC decline, clonal expansion (more frequent), and evolving chromosomal aberrations (less frequent) were observed, supporting the value of longitudinal genomic and clinical monitoring in CCUS.

Abstract Introduction: Somatic mutations in splicing factors (SF) - SF3B1, SRSF2, U2AF1, and ZRSR2 – represent one of the most common drivers of premalignant clonal hematopoesis. While SF mutations are potent drivers of clonal expansion (Fabre et al., Nature 2022), multiple SF mutations are rarely observed in the same individual (negative epistasis). Prior studies have identified rare cases of concurrent SF mutations (<4%) and described specific hotspot combinations that escape negative epistasis (Taylor et al., Blood 2020). We conducted this study to further characterize the frequency and clonal relationship between concurrent SF mutations using a larger patient cohort. Methods: After IRB approval, we assessed 3,369 myeloid next generation sequencing (NGS) results that identified somatic variants in SF3B1, SRSF2, U2AF1, or ZRSR2, in 2,500 adult patients from 08/2015 to 07/2025. Patient demographics, ICD-9/10 codes, and complete blood counts with differentials were obtained, retaining only those datapoints assigned 30 days before or after NGS testing. To allow comparison of clone size between autosomal and the X-linked SF ZRSR2, VAFs were multiplied by two to estimate the cancer cell fraction (CCF), except for ZRSR2 mutations in males. For patients harboring concurrent SF mutations, we categorized them as co-dominant if the difference in respective CCFs was < 10% of the greater CCF. Specific SF variants were categorized into common hotspots (n=13), except for ZRSR2 variants, which do not occur in defined hotspots. Fisher's exact testing was used to assess the enrichment of SF hotspot variants in patients with concurrent SF mutations, as well as combinations of SF variants in patients with co-dominant SF mutations. Results: We identified 2,331 patients with at least 1 pathogenic SF mutation, of which 6.7% (n=156) had > 1 SF mutation (multi-SF MT). The total cohort comprised cases of AML (n=549, 24%), MDS (n=977, 42%), MDS/MPN (n=233, 10%), MPN (n=228,10%), and uncategorized ICD codes (“Other”, n=326), of which the largest category was clonal cytopenia(s). Notably, the prevalence of multi-SF cases was higher than previously described and our cohort included 5 patients with 3 SF mutations and 1 with 4 SF mutations. Of the multi-SF MT patients, we identified 42 (27%) with co-dominant CCFs among their respective SF mutations. Thirty-three multi-SF MT patients had multiple NGS sampling timepoints (median 2, range 2-4) spanning a median of 0.97 years (range 0.06-5.69 years); we found that 17 of these 33 demonstrated correlative SF CCFs over multiple timepoints, suggesting their SF mutations occurred in the same clone (“co-clonal”). Of these 17 patients, 82% had co-dominant CCFs at the single-timepoint level, whereas none of the 16 non-co-clonal demonstrated co-dominance. Thus, we used SF co-dominance as a surrogate for cases likely to be co-clonal. ZRSR2 (p=8.8x10-29), U2AF1Q157 (p=9.4x10-9), SF3B1K666 (p=1.4x10-4) and infrequent SF3B1 (“SF3B1-Other”, p=.0029) mutations were overrepresented in the multi-SF MT cohort compared to patients with a single SF mutation. Within the multi-SF MT cohort, 3 SF mutation combinations showed overrepresentation in codominant cases – SRSF2P95R/H/L+ ZRSR2 (p=0.014), SRSF2P95R/H/L+ SF3B1K666 (p=0.044), and U2AF1S34 + U2AF1Q157 (p=0.024), although not significant after multiple hypothesis correction. Dual ZRSR2 mutations were the most common combination seen in the multi-SF MT cohort but were underrepresented in codominant cases (p=0.025). Although there was no disease subtype uniquely associated with total or co-dominant multi-SF MT cases, occurrence of multiple SF mutations was more common in males (8% vs. 3% in females), an effect driven by ZRSR2 mutations. Hemoglobin and WBC were lower in multi-SF MT cases, with the lower hemoglobin strongly driven by the codominant multi-SF MT cases (median 8.3 g/dL vs 9.4 g/dL, p=0.00046). Conclusions: These findings suggest that SF mutation co-occurrence in myeloid neoplasms is more prevalent than previously estimated (~7%). Furthermore, we identified 6 individuals harboring > 2 SF mutations, which has not been previously described. We validate specific SF variant pairs that appear to exist in the same clone and are working to confirm the clonal architecture and characterize global splicing aberration in selected cases with single-cell studies to fully uncover the mechanism by which negative epistasis is overcome.

Abstract Introduction: The ZRSR2 gene, located at Xp22.2, encodes a protein component of the RNA spliceosome. Alterations in ZRSR2 have been reported in various myeloid neoplasms (MN) and their precursors. They are frequently accompanied by other co-mutations, most commonly TET2. Isolated ZRSR2 mutations, however, are less commonly encountered and their clinicopathologic features have not been well documented. Aim: To describe the clinicopathologic features of MN and their precursors with isolated ZRSR2 mutations. Methods: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed on peripheral blood (PB) or bone marrow (BM) samples from patients with confirmed/suspected MN using a 35-47 gene MN-targeting NGS panel. MN and clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) cases with isolated likely pathogenic/pathogenic (LP/P) ZRSR2 mutations were identified. Pathology diagnoses were rendered following the 2022 WHO/ICC classification and the slides were reviewed by three pathologists. Electronic medical records were reviewed for collection of relevant laboratory data. This study was approved by our institution's Institutional Review Board. Results: Of 164 ZRSR2-mutated cases, 10 cases with isolated LP/P mutations in ZRSR2 were identified. Patients were all male, with a median age 69.5 years. Three patients were diagnosed with CCUS, five with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), one with chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML, MDS/MPN) and one with mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL). Six patients had additional variants of undetermined significance (VUS) detected in ASXL1, CALR, EZH2, IDH2 and TET2. The other four patients had no additional variants identified by NGS but had cytogenetic abnormalities. One patient with MPAL had MECOM and IGH gene rearrangements detected on cytogenetic analysis. All patients had macrocytic anemia. One CMML patient with accompanying VUS in TET2 also had absolute monocytosis. BM cellularity and erythroid and granulocytic morphology were variable, ranging from unremarkable to left-shifted and dysplastic morphology. Nine (90%) cases showed atypical megakaryocyte morphology, characterized by hypolobated forms and osteoclast-like forms with separated and eccentrically located nuclear lobes. Interestingly, this megakaryocytic morphology was also observed in CCUS cases, albeit with lower frequency, below the 10% threshold necessary for the diagnosis of MDS. Megakaryocyte distribution was normal. Conclusions: Isolated LP/P ZSRS2 mutations are seen in a spectrum of myeloid neoplasms, including CCUS. They show a strong association with macrocytic anemia and megakaryocytic atypia/dysplasia. The presence of additional cytogenetic alterations and variants of undetermined significance is a confounding factor in determining the role of ZRSR2 mutations in driving the pathogenesis and morphologic features of these diseases.

Abstract Prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients is influenced by various factors, most importantly, patient clinical status and cytogenetic/molecular abnormalities. Within those factors, elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) is considered a poor prognostic indicator in AML patients. Our study aims at exploring the different factors associated with elevated LDH and their impact on overall survival (OS). After obtaining IRB approval, we reviewed the charts of 381 AML patients diagnosed at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, between the years of 2016 and 2023. All data was recorded at the time of AML diagnosis. Patients with no cytogenetic and molecular data were excluded from this study. LDH levels were recorded if measured within 10 days of diagnosis and treatment for AML was not yet given. Both risk stratification and response evaluation were done following the 2022 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) guidelines. OS was calculated from the date of AML diagnosis to the date of last follow-up or death. We used BlueSky Statistics V 10.3.4 for statistical analysis. We identified 299 patients (78.4%) who had elevated LDH levels (normal ≤ 222 U/L) at the time of diagnosis with a median of 417 U/L (range, 223-7989). The median age for those patients was 68 years (range, 18-94), with 78 (26.1%) of them having a prior myeloid disease (MDS, MPN, or MDS/MPN) before AML diagnosis. By risk stratification, more than half of the patients had an adverse risk profile (n=171, 57.2%), while 71 (23.7%) and 57 (19.1%) had an intermediate and favorable risk, respectively. Most of those patients had an abnormal karyotype (n=204, 68.7%), with complex karyotype (n=103, 34.7%) being the most common abnormality, followed by monosomy 7 (n=50, 16.8%) and trisomy 8 (n=46, 15.5%). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed on 268 (89.6%) patients with elevated LDH, and the most common mutations were TP53 (n=60, 22.3%), FLT3-ITD (n=59, 21.1%), and NPM1 (n=51, 18.5%). TP53 mutations were more common in patients with normal/low white blood cell count (WBC) in contrast with FLT3 and NPM1, which were the most common mutations in patients with high WBC. After grouping the patients according to their LDH levels (group 1: 223-444 U/L, group 2: 444-666 U/L, group 3: > 666 U/L), we found that FLT3-ITD mutations were more likely to occur at higher LDH levels i.e. groups 2 and 3 (p= 0.002). The majority of patients with elevated LDH (n=262, 87.6%) received therapy following diagnosis, with the most common treatment regimens being a combination of a hypomethylating agent and venetoclax (HMA+VEN) (n=97, 37%) and a (7+3)-based induction therapy (n=77, 29.4%). When comparing patients with elevated LDH (n=299, 78.4%) to patients who had non-elevated LDH (n=82, 21.5%), no difference in both median age at diagnosis and risk stratification was found. We noticed an increase in WBC (median, 7.7 vs. 2.1) (p<0.001) along with an increase in peripheral blasts (median, 28% vs. 7%) (p<0.001) in elevated LDH patients. Among patients with non-elevated LDH, 21% (n=17) had a complex karyotype compared to 34.7% (n=103) in the elevated LDH group (p=0.022). The molecular profile was different between the 2 groups, where the most common mutations in patients with non-elevated LDH were IDH2 (n=19, 25.3%), RUNX1 (n=17, 23%), and DNMT3A (n=16, 21.6%). All patients (n=82, 100%) in the non-elevated LDH group received therapy after diagnosis. There was no difference in terms of treatment regimens used between the 2 groups. Moreover, no statistical difference in remission rates after one line of therapy was found between those groups where non-elevated LDH patients had a 65.9% remission rate compared to the 55.3% remission rate in patients with elevated LDH (p=0.098). Patients with elevated LDH had a shorter OS than patients with non-elevated LDH (9.5 vs. 26.4 months, p=0.0008). However, median OS was similar across the different groups of elevated LDH. Using univariate analysis in our cohort (n=381), age, HSCT, risk stratification, FLT3 mutation, and LDH elevation all had an impact on OS. However, when comparing those variables using multivariate analysis, age and FLT3 mutation lost their significance (p-value of 0.25 and 0.84, respectively).Complex karyotype and FLT3 mutations were more common in patients with elevated LDH. These patients tend to have higher WBC and peripheral blasts. Elevated LDH had a negative impact on patients' OS regardless of patients' risk classification.

Abstract Objective Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are common in systemic mastocytosis (SM). We hereby report the clinicopathologic and molecular features of GI mastocytosis. Methods The study includes 104 patients with suspected SM. Of 258 GI biopsy ­specimens, 33 (20 patients, 19%) were mastocytosis-positive, with 19 (16 patients) initially missed. Results Tryptase (n = 29) was weakly positive/negative in two-thirds of the mastocytosis-positive GI biopsy specimens. Additional immunohistochemistry (n = 23) showed positive mast cell expression for CD30 (n = 2), CD123 (n = 7), and PD-L1 (n = 12), as well as increased PD-1–positive cells (n = 4). Sixty patients had positive bone marrow (BM) for SM (SM-BM+), including 19 with positive GI biopsy specimens (SM-GI+). Almost all (43/44) SM-BM– patients were SM-GI–. The SM-GI vs SM-BM status showed high positive predictive value (95%) and specificity (98%). Patients with SM with mastocytosis-positive vs mastocytosis-negative GI biopsy specimens had higher serum tryptase levels (P = .04). KIT D816V mutation was detected in 7 of 13 and 12 of 13 mastocytosis-positive GI biopsy specimens using allele-specific polymerase chain reaction and droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR), respectively. Conclusions GI mastocytosis is highly predictive of SM in BM; however, most SM-BM+ patients are SM-GI–. The SM-BM– patients are very unlikely to be SM-GI+. Because GI neoplastic mast cells are often tryptase negative, diagnostic evaluation should include CD117 and CD25 immunohistochemistry, as well as KIT D816V mutation analysis by ddPCR as needed.

Objective Vacuoles E1 enzyme X‐linked autoinflammatory somatic syndrome (VEXAS) is a recently identified rare genetic disorder associated with somatic mutations in the UBA1 gene. VEXAS presents with a combination of inflammatory and hematologic manifestations, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Methods Given the variability in disease presentation and the limited number of studies to date, no clinical documents currently exist to provide guidance to health care providers about the management of VEXAS. To address this gap, we formed an international multidisciplinary panel of VEXAS experts. Results Through formalized meetings and a voting process, the group developed consensus clinical guidance considerations for the management of VEXAS. These considerations offer practical advice on several key topics: (1) clinical features of VEXAS, (2) UBA1 screening methods, (3) the diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) in patients with VEXAS, and (4) prognosis and management. The aim is to provide expert guidance on which patients to test, how to test for VEXAS, how to approach MDS in the context of VEXAS, and considerations for management. Conclusion This work marks the first formal international consensus guidance for VEXAS and is intended to be used as a resource for clinicians seeking to understand the disease and its management.