Garcia‐Manero, Guillermo

Introduction Oligomonocytic chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (OM-CMML) is defined by relative monocytosis ≥ 10% and an absolute monocyte count (AMC) between ≥ 0.5 and < 1.0 x109/L. The 5th ed WHO and International Consensus Classifications lowered the AMC threshold to ≥ 0.5 x10/9L for CMML diagnosis, thereby incorporating OM-CMML (Khoury, 2022; Arber, 2022). However, prior reports differ as to whether OM-CMML is a distinct CMML subtype. This multi-center study compares the clinical, molecular, and survival features of OM-CMML with myelodysplastic (MD, WBC < 13.0 x109/L) and myeloproliferative (MP, WBC ≥ 13.0 x109/L) CMML with an AMC ≥1.0. Methods After IRB approval, patients with CMML from Mayo Clinic (n = 400, 47%) and MD Anderson Cancer Center (n = 449, 53%) were identified retrospectively. Analyses considered clinical, laboratory, and next generation sequencing parameters at diagnosis or first referral (in chronic phase). Categorical variables were compared by Fisher exact or Pearson χ2 tests and continuous variables by Mann-Whitney U or ANOVA tests. Survival was assessed via the Kaplan-Meier method with outcomes censored at allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT). P < 0.05 was considered significant. Calculations used BlueSky Statistics (v10.3.1). Results A molecularly annotated cohort of 849 patients with CMML (median age 71 years, 32% female, 90% white, median follow up 31 months [mo]) was categorized as OM-CMML (n = 57, 7%), MD-CMML (n = 394, 46%), and MP-CMML (n = 391, 46%). There were no differences in age or sex across subtypes. No clinical differences were observed between OM-CMML and MD-CMML, with similar hematologic parameters, karyotype distributions, Mayo-Molecular (Patnaik, 2014) or CPSS-Molecular (Elena, 2016) risk stratifications, and rates of leukemic transformation (12% vs 12%, p = 0.98) and death (35% vs 43%, p = 0.27). Cases of OM-CMML had lower WBC counts (median 4.4 vs 24.7 x109/L, p < 0.0001), fewer circulating immature myeloid cells (23% vs 57%, p < 0.0001) and fewer marrow blasts (median 3% vs 4%, p = 0.0065) than MP-CMML. Comparatively, OM-CMML cases were overrepresented in the lower-risk groups of the CPSS-Molecular and Mayo-Molecular models (p < 0.0001). Leukemic transformation (12% vs 20%, p = 0.015) and death (35% vs 52%, p = 0.034) rates were higher in the MP-CMML cohort. Molecular profiles were similar between OM-CMML and MD-CMML, including median number of genes mutated (3 vs 3, p = 0.88). Frequencies of ASXL1 (39% vs 38%, p = 0.91), SRSF2 (48% vs 43%, p = 0.49), DNMT3A (7% vs 5%, p = 0.60), and SF3B1 (4% vs 7%, p = 0.48) mutations were also similar. TET2 mutation frequency was higher in OM-CMML (70% vs 55%, p = 0.031) and occurred in isolation more frequently (12% vs 6%, p = 0.048) compared to MD-CMML. Neither median number of TET2 mutations (1 vs 2, p = 0.87), nor TET2 variant allele fractions (41% vs 44%, p = 0.19) were different between the two groups. Compared to OM-CMML, patients with MP-CMML were more likely to have mutations in ASXL1 (39% vs 56%, p = 0.017), EZH2 (0% vs 9%, p = 0.019), JAK2 (0% vs 9%, p = 0.019), NRAS (7% vs 25%, p = 0.0024), and SETBP1 (2% vs 13%, p = 0.021). RAS family (CBL, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, PTPN11; 25% vs 54%, p < 0.0001) and signaling pathway (CSF3R, FLT3, JAK2, SH2B3; 2% vs 14%, p = 0.0078) mutations were also more frequent whereas spliceosome mutations (SF3B1, SRSF2, U2AF1, ZRSR2; 61% vs 46%, p = 0.033) were less frequent in MP-CMML. The median (95% CI) overall survival (OS) of OM-CMML patients was 44 (38 - not reached) mo compared to 45 (34 - 60) mo in MD-CMML (p = 0.76) and 23 (20 - 29) mo in MP-CMML (p < 0.0032). Similar results were obtained when comparing the acute leukemia-free survival (LFS) of the OM-CMML (41 mo), MD-CMML (39 mo), and MP-CMML (19 mo) groups. At last follow up (medians 42 and 62 mo, respectively), 33% of evaluable OM-CMML patients had progressed to MD-CMML and 28% of MD-CMML patients had progressed to MP-CMML. No patient with OM-CMML progressed directly to MP-CMML. Conclusions These data show that OM-CMML and MD-CMML are a relatively homogenous subset of patients with similar clinicomolecular profiles and survival outcomes. Although OM-CMML patients are more likely to have TET2 mutations in comparison to other CMML subtypes, they have similar rates of disease progression as MD-CMML. This validates recent modifications to CMML classification criteria, in which OM-CMML cases are included as bona fide CMML.

Introduction Patients with lower-risk (LR) myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) experience shortened survival and significant unmet medical need due to limited disease-modifying treatments. The NLRP3 pathway is activated in hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells and in the marrow microenvironment in myeloid neoplasms, contributing to ineffective hematopoiesis and clonal progression. DFV890, a small molecule NLRP3 inhibitor, blocks IL-1β and IL-18 secretion and pyroptotic cell death. Thus, DFV890 may disrupt the smoldering inflammation and provide disease-modifying benefits to patients by restoring normal hematopoiesis and suppressing clonal myeloproliferation. Methods This open-label, phase 1b, multicenter study evaluates DFV890 in patients with very low, low, or intermediate risk MDS per revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) criteria and low or intermediate-1 risk CMML per CMML-specific Prognostic Scoring System (CPSS) criteria (NCT05552469). The study comprises 2 parts: dose optimization and dose expansion. Eligible patients ≥18 years, with ECOG performance status ≤2, carrying a diagnosis of (a) IPSS-R-defined LR-MDS or (b) CPSS-defined LR-CMML, and have failed to respond to or not tolerated established first-line therapies as defined in the protocol. Key exclusion criteria include previous treatment with agents targeting the NLRP3 inflammasome and IL-1 pathway. DFV890 is administered orally twice daily (BID) for a minimum of 24 weeks (6 cycles of treatment) until treatment discontinuation. In the dose-optimization part, patients are randomized to receive either low- or high-dose, stratified by indication. Primary objectives are to assess safety and tolerability and determine the optimal for DFV890. Secondary objectives include assessment of pharmacokinetics, and evaluation of preliminary efficacy of DFV890 based on hematologic improvement (Garcia-Manero, Blood 2023). Exploratory objectives include assessment of peripheral cytokines and genetic alterations in blood and bone marrow, and patient-reported symptoms. Results As of April 15, 2024, 39 patients (median age, 74 years) with a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range: 1-5) were treated with DFV890 in the dose-optimization part. Based on an 8-week screening period, 8 patients (20.5%) were RBC transfusion independent at baseline. Eighteen patients received low dose (17 with LR-MDS; 1 with LR-CMML), and 21 patients received high dose (18 with LR-MDS; 3 with LR-CMML). At data cutoff, 10 (25.6%) patients had discontinued treatment. Median duration of exposure was 10.7 weeks (range, 0.6-42.0 weeks). Adverse events (AEs) leading to study drug discontinuation were only reported in the high dose arm (2 patients, grade ≥3 neutropenia, n=1 and blood bilirubin increased, n=1). Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were reported in 10 patients (25.6%), with 4 (10.3%) experiencing grade ≥3 TRAEs (anemia [n=2], neutropenia, and rash [n=1 each]). No serious AEs related to DFV890 were reported. Peripheral cytokines were assessed as a marker of preliminary activity. Decrease in plasma IL-18 and IL-1RA levels observed in most patients, with a higher frequency in the low dose arm (IL-18 decreased in 8/8 patients in low dose arm vs. 4/7 in high dose arm; IL-1RA in 7/8 vs. 5/7), potentially due to less frequent dose interruptions. Changes in serum IL-6 levels were more heterogeneous; notably, among the patients with complete mutation and biomarker data, both patients with mutations in TET2 showed dramatic decreases in serum IL-6; IL-18 and IL-1RA also decreased in those patients. In addition, out of 8 patients who were transfusion-independent at baseline, 6 reported an increase in hemoglobin with treatment, 4 of whom with an increment >10% from baseline. Updated data including hematologic response assessment according to IWG will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions Preliminary findings from this ongoing study show a favorable safety profile in patients with LR-MDS and LR-CMML, in line with prior human studies with DFV890. Analysis of peripheral cytokines and hematologic parameters showed early indications of activity in a subset of patients, particularly those with mutations in TET2 and those transfusion independent at baseline. These findings will require confirmation with longer follow-up and in the dose expansion phase of the study.

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.

Abstract Background:Evorpacept (EVO) is a high affinity CD47-blocking fusion protein with an inactive human immunoglobulin Fc region designed to enhance the activity of other anti-neoplastic therapies with minimal additional toxicity. Here, we present final phase 1 results from the ASPEN-02 study. Methods:ASPEN-02 is an open-label, multicenter phase 1/2 study designed to evaluate the safety and activity of EVO in combination with azacitidine (AZA) in subjects with newly diagnosed (ND) higher-risk (HR) or relapsed/refractory (R/R) MDS. Adult subjects with ND HR (IPSS-R > 3.5) or R/R MDS were enrolled into phase 1 cohorts receiving escalating doses of EVO (20 mg/kg Q2W, 30 mg/kg Q2W, and 60 mg/kg Q4W) combined with AZA (75 mg/m2 IV/SC x 7d) in a 28-day treatment cycle. A phase 1 dose expansion portion enrolled adults with ND HR MDS into two dosing cohorts determined to be safe at EVO 40 mg/kg Q4W and 60 mg/kg Q4W. This clinical trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04417517. Results: As of June 2, 2023, 65 subjects were treated in the phase 1 portion, including 13 subjects with R/R MDS [EVO doses of 20 mg/kg Q2W (n=1) or 60 mg/kg Q4W (n=12)], and 52 subjects with ND HR MDS [EVO doses of 40 mg/kg Q4W (n=23) and 60 mg/kg Q4W (n=29)]. Of 52 ND HRMDS subjects, 9 (17.3%) had therapy-related MDS. Multi-hit TP53 mutations were present at baseline in 2/13 (15.4%) R/R MDS and 3/52 (5.8%) ND HR MDS patients. 13/13 (100%) R/R MDS patients had received prior hypomethylating agents or cytotoxic chemotherapy. Median age was 70 (range 24 - 88) years, and baseline ECOG scores were 0 (n=27, 41.5%), 1 (n=31, 47.7%), or 2 (n=7, 10.8%). No dose-limiting toxicity was observed, and a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not reached. Treatment-emergent AEs and treatment-related AEs for EVO were reported in 65/65 (100%) and 35/65 (53.8%) subjects respectively; discontinuation, however, was infrequent. Seven (10.8%) subjects experienced a serious adverse event related to EVO. There were no EVO-related deaths on study. Preliminary PK indicated dose-proportional pharmacokinetics consistent with prior studies. Objective response [complete remission (CR), partial remission (PR), marrow CR (mCR), hematologic improvement (HI)], per modified International Working Group 2006 criteria, was observed in 19/52 (36.5%) ND HR [CR=8, mCR=9, HI=2] and 2/13 (15.4%) R/R [mCR=2] MDS subjects. Conclusion:The myeloid checkpoint inhibitor EVO was well tolerated in combination with AZA with an initial safety and activity profile comparable to that of historical AZA monotherapy. Additional updated data will be provided at the time of presentation. Citation Format: Guillermo Garcia-Manero, Bart L. Scott, Ashwin Kishtagari, Srinivasa R. Sanikommu, Aref Al-Kali, Je-Hwan Lee, Juan M. Bergua Burgues, Maria Diez-Campelo, Harry P. Erba, Carmen Garcia-Hernandez, Guillermo Sanz Santillana, Casey O'Connell, Jun-Ho Jang, Dong-Yeop Shin, Hamid Sayar, Mayank Rao, Richard S. Schwartz, Grace An, Feng Jin, Alison J. Forgie, Athanasios C. Tsiatis, Jessica K. Altman. Phase 1 study of azacitidine in combination with evorpacept for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(7_Suppl):Abstract nr CT060.

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.

Background and Significance Dysregulation of alternative splicing, caused by abnormal expression or mutation of splicing factors, has been identified as an important contributor to the genesis and progression of cancer, and suggested as a novel target for anticancer treatment. CDC2-like kinases (CLK) represent a family of dual-specificity tyrosine and serine-threonine kinases that are involved in the regulation of splicing by phosphorylation of serine/arginine-rich splicing factors (SRSFs) which play a central role in exon recognition. CTX-712 is an orally available, potent, selective, and a first-in-class pan-CLK inhibitor (CLK 1-4), that inhibits phosphorylation of SRSFs resulting in significant antitumor activity in vitro and multiple xenograft models in vivo. CTX-712 formulated in capsules is currently being evaluated in an ongoing first-in-man study in Japan, evaluating tolerability and early efficacy in patients with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies (JapicCTI-184188). Preliminary data from the Japanese study were presented during ASCO 2022 and ASH 2022, and showed an acceptable safety profile (doses up to 175 mg (MTD 140 mg) twice a week in 28-day cycles, observed DLTs included dehydration, decreased platelets, hypokalemia, and pneumonia) with early signs of clinical antitumor activity (2 partial responses / 26 treated solid tumor patients, 5 complete remissions and complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery/ 8 treated patients with AML or MDS), warranting further clinical investigations.. (J Clin Oncol (2022) 40(16_suppl):3080. Blood (2022) 140(Supplement 1):6211-2.). This abstract details a second study with CTX-712 that has just been initiated. Study Design and Methods A new film-coated tablet formulation will be evaluated in this phase 1/2 multicenter, open-label study of CTX-712 in patients with (mutated or wild type spliceosomes genes) relapsed/refractory AML, higher risk MDS (IPSS-R intermediate, high, or very high), or high marrow blast (≥5 %) MDS/MPN (including CMML). The phase 1 part of the study will be conducted at 4 US sites, and all sites are currently open for enrolment. The study allows patients with performance status 0, 1, or 2, adequate organ function, and up to four prior lines of therapy. Due to potential risk of interactions (in vitro studies suggest CYP3A4 as main metabolic pathway for CTX-712), concomitant use of strong CYP3A4 inhibitors is prohibited. Use of azole antifungals that are not strong CYP3A4 inhibitors (e.g., isavuconazole) is permitted. The phase 1 part of the study consists of dose-escalation (sequential standard 3 + 3 design), where cohorts of 3 (or 6) patients will receive ascending doses of CTX-712 once weekly in a 28-day cycle with continuous monitoring of emerging clinical PK, PD, safety, and efficacy data, to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) based on the suggestion by the Safety Review Committee (SRC). The protocol defines five different dose levels (20-140 mg, once weekly) but also authorizes the SRC to suggest up to two interim dose levels or alternate schedules (e.g., dosing two times a week) if supported by emerging data. The suggested RP2D will be used in a confirmatory phase 1 expansion cohort where an additional 10 patients (total n = 16; 8 patients with AML and 8 patients with MDS) will be treated to gain further confidence in the selected dose level. The phase 2 part of the study will commence after the RP2D has been identified and confirmed and aims at evaluating therapeutic activity in R/R AML (Cohort 2a) or R/R HR-MDS (Cohort 2b), in addition to confirmation of the safety profile. Clinical trial registry number: NCT05732103

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.

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.

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.