Kumar, Sharad

Abstract This retrospective analysis aimed to provide evidence-based risk stratification of TP53-mutated (TP53mut) myeloid neoplasms (MNs). Of 580 MNs harboring TP53mut with variant allele frequency (VAF) ≥2%, 219 (37.8%), 194 (33.4%), 92 (15.9%), and 75 (12.9%) were classified as acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with low blasts (MDS-LB), MDS with excess blasts (MDS-EB)-2, and -EB1 according to the revised fourth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification, respectively. Hierarchical analysis identified the following 4 risk groups with distinct survival: (1) MDS-LB, (2) MDS-EB1/EB2/AML VAF <10%, (3) MDS-EB1/EB2 VAF ≥10%, and (4) AML VAF ≥10%. We next evaluated the impact of allelic status, VAF, and complex karyotype (CK). In our cohort, the significance of biallelic status was limited to MDS with <5% blasts and not for blasts 5% to 9%, as proposed by the International Consensus Classification (ICC), or 5% to 19%, as proposed by the fifth edition of the WHO (WHO-5). MDS-EB1 and -EB2 with VAF ≥10% had comparable survival (9.6 vs 7.2 months; P = .12), regardless of allelic status. Contrary to the ICC proposal, MDS-EB1/EB2 with VAF <10% and CK had poor survival compared with those without CK, comparable to MDS-EB1/EB2 with VAF ≥10% (5.6 vs 26.2 vs 6.3 months; P = .003). Survival of TP53mut AML was poor (median 3.9 months) regardless of allelic/CK status. Thus, using ICC or WHO-5 may underestimate prognosis of MDS with blasts 5% to 19% and 5% to 9%, respectively. Collectively, the hierarchical model acknowledges poor survival of 91.9% TP53mut MDS and AML compared with 36.5% and 80.7% by WHO-5 and ICC, respectively.

Background: TP53-mutated (TP53mut) myeloid neoplasms (MN) have particularly poor survival. Discrepancies in defining TP53mut MN have impact on diagnostic work up, therapeutic decisions, and clinical trial enrolment. Methods: MN cases harboring TP53mut (variant allele frequency, VAF ≥2%) were classified based on bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood (PB) blast % using the 4th revision of the WHO classification (WHO-4R). Biallelic loss was defined as (i) ≥2 mutations each with VAF ≥2%; (ii) single TP53mut VAF ≥2% plus 17p loss detected on karyotype, FISH, or SNP; or (iii) single TP53mut VAF ≥50%, whereas monoallelic loss was defined as single TP53mut VAF <50% without 17p loss. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) from diagnosis. Conditional Inference Trees (CIT) analysis was used to determine the true effect of a predictor. Results: We identified 580 cases including WHO-4R defined acute myeloid leukemia (AML, BM/PB blasts ≥20%, n=219, 37.8%), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with excess blasts-2 (EB-2, BM 10-19% or PB 5%-19%, n=92, 15.9%), MDS with excess blasts-1 (EB-1, BM 5-9% or PB 2-4%, n=75, 12.9%), and the remaining were MDS with low blasts (-LB, BM <5% and PB ≤1%, n=194, 33.4%). Of the 578 cases evaluable for allelic status, 437 (75.6%) and 141 (24.4%) had biallelic and monoallelic TP53 loss, respectively. Higher frequency of biallelic loss was observed with increasing blasts. 63.2%, 73.3%, 78% and 86.3% of cases with MDS-LB, MDS-EB1, MDS-EB2, and AML had bi-allelic TP53 loss (P<0.0001). In a multivariable analysis, WHO-4R categories, VAF ≥10%, and biallelic loss were independent predictors of poor survival. CIT analysis further stratified the cohort into 4 groups with distinct survival: (1) MDS-LB (n=194, 33.4%); (2) MDS-EB1/EB2 and AML with VAF <10% (n=38, 6.6%); (3) MDS-EB1/EB2 with VAF ≥10% (n=149, 25.7%); and (4) AML with VAF ≥10% (n=199, 34.3%). MDS-LB cases could be further stratified based on allelic status and complex karyotype (CK): OS was poor for cases with biallelic TP53 loss and monoallelic TP53mut with CK compared to monoallelic TP53mut without CK, who had the most favorable survival (12.7 vs. 13 vs. 34.8 months, P<0.0001).MDS-EB1/EB2/AML with VAF<10% could also be stratified by CK: MDS-EB1/EB2/AML with VAF<10% cases without CK had the favorable survival compared to their counterparts with CK and MDS-EB1/EB2 with VAF ≥10% cases (26.2 vs. 5.6 vs. 6.3 months, P=0.003).MDS-EB1/EB2 with VAF ≥10% was a homogenous subgroup: Biological characteristics including the proportion of cases with biallelic TP53 loss, CK (P>0.9), monosomal karyotype (MK, P>0.9), del 5q (P=0.6), del 7q (P=0.4), and del 17p (P=0.2) were comparable between MDS-EB1 and -EB2 with VAF ≥10%. Importantly, median OS of MDS-EB1 and EB2 with VAF ≥10% was comparable (9.6 vs. 7.2 months, P=0.12). OS in this group was comparable regardless of the blast %, allelic status, or presence of CK.AML with VAF ≥10% had extremely poor survival: Median OS was 3.9 months. Survival of AML was equally poor irrespective of the mono- or biallelic (3.6 vs. 3.9, P=0.89) and non-CK vs. CK (1.8 vs. 3.9 months, P=0.09). Combined, our model would acknowledge poor survival of 514 (89.1%) cases. In contrast, retrospective application of the 5th edition of the WHO classification (WHO-5) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) would classify only 211 (36.4%) and 468 (80.7%) cases as biallelic/multi-hit TP53mut MN, respectively. Finally, the Harrell's c-index of the proposed model, WHO-5, and ICC was 0.66, 0.571, and 0.617, respectively. Conclusion: We provide evidence for subsequent refinements in classifying MN harboring TP53mut. Our salient findings include: (i) acknowledgement of CK as ‘biallelic equivalent’ in MDS-LB; as well as EB1/EB2/AML with VAF 2 to <10% cases; and (ii) demonstration of poor survival of MDS-EB1 and -EB2 with VAF ≥10% regardless of the allelic status. In conclusion, our proposed model acknowledged poor survival of a higher proportion of cases as TP53mut MN compared to the current models with a higher c- index.

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.