Matin, Aasiya

ABSTRACT Patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (ND‐AML) derive variable survival benefit from venetoclax + hypomethylating agent (Ven‐HMA) therapy. The primary objective in the current study was to develop genetic risk models that are predictive of survival and are applicable at the time of diagnosis and after establishing treatment response. Among 400 ND‐AML patients treated with Ven‐HMA at the Mayo Clinic, 247 (62%) achieved complete remission with (CR) or without (CRi) count recovery. Multivariable analysis–derived hazard ratios (HR), including 1.8 for European LeukemiaNet (ELN) adverse karyotype, 4.7 for KMT2Ar , 1.7 for TP53 MUT , 2.6 for KRAS MUT , and 2.1 for IDH2 WT were applied to develop an HR‐weighted risk model: low, intermediate, and high; respective median survival censored for allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) (3‐year survival) were “not reached” (67%), 19.1 (33%), and 7.1 months (0%). In patients achieving CR/CRi, adverse karyotype, KMT2Ar , KRAS MUT , IDH2 WT predicted inferior survival, allowing for a complementary response‐stratified risk model. The model was externally validated and was shown to be superior to the ELN 2024 risk model (AIC 179 vs. 195 and AUC 0.77 vs. 0.69). Survival was inferior with failure to achieve CR/CRi or not receiving ASCT; 3‐year survival for high‐risk with or without ASCT was 42% versus 0% ( p < 0.01); intermediate 72% versus 43% ( p = 0.06); and low‐risk 88% versus 78% ( p = 0.53). The Mayo genetic risk models offer pre‐treatment and response‐based prognostic tools for ND‐AML treated with Ven‐HMA. The current study underscores the prognostically indispensable role of achieving CR/CRi and ASCT.

Background Venetoclax + hypomethylating agent (Ven-HMA) therapy results in favorable response rates (CR/CRi 66%) and overall survival (OS; median 14.7 months) in unfit patients with newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (ND-AML; N Engl J Med 2020;383). However, there is substantial heterogeneity in individual patient outcomes based on response to treatment. The objective of the current study was to develop a genetic risk model to predict survival outcome in treatment responders and non-responders, analyzed separately, and also account for allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT). Methods Treatment-naïve AML patients receiving Ven-HMA, outside of a clinical trial, at the Mayo Clinic, USA (MN, AZ, FL) were retrospectively recruited. Molecular studies (48-gene panel) were performed by next-generation sequencing. Response was assessed according to the 2022 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria (Blood 2022;140). Standard statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro (Version 17.0.0). Results 400 ND-AML patients (median age 73 years, 64% male, 60% de novo) received Ven-HMA. ELN cytogenetic risk included favorable 2%, intermediate 60%, or adverse 38%. Mutations involved TP53 in 26%, TET2 19%, RUNX1 19%, SRSF2 18%, ASXL1 18%, DNMT3A 15%, K/NRAS 13%, NPM1 12%, IDH2 12%, FLT3-ITD 10%, IDH1 7% and DDX41 in 4% of informative cases. 153 (38%) patients achieved CR, 94 (24%) CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi), resulting in CR/CRi in 247 (62%) patients. CR/CRi rates were higher with NPM1 (86% vs 59%), IDH2 (77% vs 60%), and DDX41 mutations (93% vs 61%) and lower with TP53 (45% vs 67%), FLT3-ITD (41% vs 64%), RUNX1 (49% vs 65%) mutations and adverse karyotype (48% vs 71%), with all retaining significance in multivariable analysis. CR/CRi rate was highest (87%) in 75 patients with one or more favorable mutations (NPM1, IDH2, DDX41) and no unfavorable mutation (TP53, FLT3-ITD, RUNX1). CR/CRi rate was lowest in 171 patients with at least one unfavorable mutation and no favorable mutation (44%; p&lt;0.01). After a median follow up of 10.5 months (0.5-66), 105 relapses (43% of patients in CR/CRi), 248 (62%) deaths and 65 (16%) ASCT were documented. Univariate analysis for transplant-censored OS disclosed superior survival in patients achieving CR/CRi (median 21 vs 3.6 months; HR 5.4, 95% CI 4.1-7.1). Among patients achieving CR/CRi, IDH2 mutation was associated with superior (median not reached vs 20.5 months) and male gender (median 17.6 vs 29.2 months), TP53 mutations (median 11.9 vs 24.3 months) and adverse karyotype (median 12.6 vs 29.4 months) with inferior survival; multivariable analysis resulted in HRs (95% CI) of 2.1 (1.3-3.4) for male gender, 2.1 (1.2-3.8) for adverse karyotype, and 2.5 (1.1-5.7) for absence of IDH2 mutations. Male gender did not show an association with karyotype, or TP53 mutations (p&gt;0.1). Accordingly, an HR-weighted genetic risk model was generated with assignment of one point each to male gender, adverse karyotype, and absence of IDH2 mutation: high risk = 3 risk factors (n=38; median 9.6 months; 3-year survival 0%); intermediate risk = 2 risk factors (n=129; median 22 months; 3-year survival 38%); and low-risk = ≤1 risk factor (n=78; median not reached; 3-year survival 69%; p&lt;0.01). In patients bridged to ASCT (n=60), post-transplant survival was inferior in the presence of ≥ 2 risk factors (n=42; median 46 months) vs. ≤1 risk factor (n=18; median not reached; p=0.1). In patients not achieving CR/CRi, risk factors for OS included male gender (median 3.4 vs 6.1 months), adverse karyotype (median 3.3 vs 4.5 months) and TP53 mutation (median 3.1 vs 4.5 months) while those with IDH2 mutations lived longer (median 8.4 vs 3.4 months). In multivariable analysis, HRs (95% CI) were 1.9 (1.3-2.9) for male gender, 2.0 (1.4-2.9) for adverse karyotype, and 2.1 (1.1-4.3) for absence of IDH2 mutations. OS was shortest for non-responders harboring 3 risk factors (n=45; median 3 months; 1-year survival 0%) and longer for those harboring two (n=80; median 6 months, 1-year OS 15%) or ≤ 1 risk factor (n=25; median 14 months; 1-year OS 56%; p&lt;0.01). Conclusion The current study describes a molecular profile for predicting response to Ven-HMA in ND-AML and also introduces a novel approach to survival prediction that considers treatment response as the starting point. In both responders and non-responders, male gender and adverse karyotype were identified as unfavorable and IDH2 mutation favorable risk factor for OS.

Background Venetoclax + hypomethylating agent (Ven-HMA) therapy has demonstrated improved outcomes in elderly/unfit patients with newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (ND-AML) (N Engl J Med 2020;383). However, ~50% of patients who respond to Ven-HMA, eventually relapse (Am J Hematol 2024;99). In the current study we examined the prognostic contribution of gene mutations, karyotype, measurable residual disease (MRD) status and clinical risk factors for relapse in patients with ND-AML treated with Ven-HMA therapy. Methods Our study population of ND-AML was retrospectively recruited from Mayo Clinic (MN, AZ, FL), after institutional review board approval and based on documentation of complete remission with/without count recovery (CR/CRi) following Ven-HMA therapy. Relapse-free survival was determined from the time of remission to relapse or last follow-up. Survival analysis was censored for transplant. The 2022 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria was used to assign cytogenetic risk and classify treatment response (Blood 2022;140). Standard statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro (Version 17.0.0). Results 247 ND-AML patients treated with Ven-HMA (median age 73 years, 62% male, 64% de novo) who achieved CR (n=153), or CRi (n=94) were included. MRD by multiparameter flow cytometry (sensitivity 0.01%) performed at the time of CR/CRi, was negative in 117 (70%) of 166 informative cases. ELN cytogenetic risk categories at diagnosis included favorable 2%, intermediate 69%, or adverse 29%. Mutations involved TET2 21%, SRSF2 21%, TP53 19%, ASXL1 18%, DNMT3A 18%, NPM1 17%, IDH2 15%, RUNX1 15%, K/NRAS 12%, IDH1 8%, FLT3-ITD 7%, and DDX41 in 6% of informative cases. Relapse was documented in a total of 99 (40%) patients who achieved CR (39%) or CRi (41%) after a median remission duration of 6 months (1-31). Patients that relapsed within the first-year vs those that did not, were more likely to be males (75% vs 55%), MRD positive (44% vs 24%), and harbor TP53 mutations (23% vs 16%). Univariate analysis for RFS identified male gender (12 vs 29 months; p=0.02), secondary AML (10 vs 21 months; p&lt;0.01), adverse karyotype (9 vs 22 months; p&lt;0.01), TP53 mutations (6 vs 18 months, p&lt;0.01) and MRD positive remission (13 months vs not reached; p&lt;0.01) as risk factors for relapse; on the other hand, IDH2 mutations (not reached vs 15 months; p&lt;0.01) were associated with a lower risk of relapse. Multivariable analysis confirmed male gender (HR 2.2), TP53 mutations (HR 3.0) and MRD positive remission (HR 1.7) as unfavorable predictors of relapse. Subsequently, in a three-tiered relapse prediction model, RFS was significantly inferior in the presence of three risk factors (male gender, TP53 mutations, MRD positive remission) (n=10, median 4 months), vs two (n=34, median 10 months) vs ≤ 1 risk factor (n=122, median 31 months) (p&lt;0.01); 1-year cumulative incidence of relapse was 100%, 56%, and 26% in the presence of three, two and ≤ 1 risk factors, respectively. 50 of 99 (65%) patients received salvage therapy which included cladribine-cytarabine-Ven (n=19), intensive induction chemotherapy (n=9), FLT3 inhibitors (n=5), Ven-HMA-FLT3 inhibitor (n=1), IDH1/2 inhibitors (n=5), glasdegib-cytarabine (n=4), gemtuzumab (n=3), lenalidomide (n=1), or investigational therapies (n=3); in addition, Ven-HMA was resumed in 14 patients in whom treatment had been discontinued for a median of 5 months (2-12). Overall, 20 (31%) of patients achieved second CR/CRi and response rates were similar with intensive vs less intensive therapy (CR/CRi; 44% vs 29%; p=0.37). Median follow up after relapse was 3.4 months (1-66), during which 73 (74%) deaths, and 4 (5%) ASCT were recorded. Median transplant-censored survival was 4.2 months (1-year; 22%), and inferior in patients with adverse karyotype (median 4.6 vs 3.4 months; p=0.02), and TP53 mutations (3.6 vs 4.4; p=0.11); on the other hand, male gender (3.5 vs 6.8 months; p=0.51), MRD positive remission (4.6 vs 4.2; p=0.56), and IDH2 mutations (6.7 vs 4.2; p=0.28), did not influence post-relapse survival. Conclusions The current study identifies male gender, TP53 mutations, and MRD status as powerful predictors of relapse and proposes a relapse prediction model for ND-AML patients receiving Ven-HMA therapy. Furthermore, relapse following Ven-HMA was associated with uniformly poor outcomes, regardless of salvage treatment strategy.

Background: SETBP1 gene, located on 18q12.3, is a major oncogene in myeloid neoplasms. GATA2 gene, located on 3q21, is one of the six GATA transcription factors regulating gene expression via two conserved zinc finger domains (ZF). Previous data suggested that in patients with germline GATA2 mutation (m), acquisition of a somatic SETBP1 mutation (m) was associated with leukemic transformation among patients with excess blast MDS and CMML. Aim: To study the characteristics of patients with somatic SETBP1-GATA2 mutated myeloid neoplasms. Methods: This study is a retrospective study at Mayo Clinic. After obtaining IRB approval, we retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients who had myeloid NGS panel results between 2016-2023. All data were recorded at time of first NGS. Cohort 1 was defined as patients with SETBP1m and GATA2m, cohort 2; patients with SETBP1m and GATA2wt, and cohort 3; patients with SETBP1wt and GATA2m. Germline work-up was not performed in the majority of GATA2 cases. We stratified risk based on the European LeukemiaNet 2022 guidelines for AML, IPSS-M for MDS and MDS/MPN, and CPSS-M for CMML. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from date of NGS to date of last follow-up based on Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression analysis. For statistical analysis, we used BlueSky Statistics V10.3.1. Results: General characteristics: 114 patients had SETBP1m (median VAF= 39%), and 63 patients had GATA2m (median VAF= 35%). Nine patients had co-occurring SETBP1m/GATA2m mutations (cohort 1). 4/9 patients in cohort 1 had MDS/MPN (44.4%), while only 13/105 in cohort 2 (12.4%) had MDS/MPN (P=0.02). AML was seen in 2 patients in cohort 1 (22.2%) compared to18 in cohort 2 (17.1%) (p=0.6). The median WBC count was 22.9 x 109 cells/L among cohort 1 compared to 9 x 109 cells/L among cohort 2 cases (p=0.09). BM blasts were higher in cohort 3 (7%) compared to cohort 1 (5%) and cohort 2 (3%) (p=0.09), while peripheral blasts tended to be lower in cohort 2 (1%) in comparison to cohort 1 (6%) and cohort 3 (4%) (p=0.48). Genetic characteristics: In cohort 1,7 GATA2m clustered in zinc finger 2 (ZF2) (77.8%), while the other two mutations were outside the ZF domains (22.2%). This was higher than the ZF2 mutated cases in cohort 3 (46.3%, p=0.1). Abnormal cytogenetics were seen in 66.7% of cohort 1 patients and 45% of cohort 2 (p= 0.3). Two cases with trisomy 8 were seen among patients in cohort 1 (22.2%), compared to only 4.9% in cohort 2 (p=0.09). Two incidences of isochromosome 17q [i(17q)] were seen in cohort 1 (22.2%), versus 5 cases in cohort 2 (4.8%) and 1 case in cohort 3 (1.9%) (p= 0.068). Co-mutations: The median number of co-mutationswas 3 in both cohort 1 and cohort 2 (p= 0.6). In cohort 1, ASXL1 and SRSF2 mutations were the most common (7/9, 77.8%) followed by NRAS (22.2%) and TET2 (22.2%). 77.8% of cohort 1 patients had SRSF2 co-mutation, compared to 44.8% in cohort 2 (p=0.08), and 27.8% in cohort 3 (p= 0.006). No isolated SETBP1m/GATA2m cases were found. Survival: Patients in cohort 1 had a numerically higher median OS compared to those in cohort 2 (19.4 vs 15.4 months, p= 0.3). When comparing with the cohort 3, patients in cohort 1 tended to have better outcomes (median OS= 19.4 vs 13.8 months, p=0.8). Among cohort 1, SRSF2 co-mutation was associated with worse survival outcomes compared to patients with SRSF2wt (median OS= 5.3 vs 19.4 months, p= 0.02); this association was not found in cohort 2 (12.5 vs 18.4 months, p= 0.3) and cohort 3 (13.2 vs 17.1 months, p= 0.4). Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation was associated with favorable survival outcomes in all cohorts (cohort 1: 22.6 vs 7.8 months, p= 0.1; cohort 2: 20.9 vs 12.5 months, p= 0.04; cohort 3: 25.6 vs 13.1 months, p= 0.03). Conclusion: SETBP1m/GATA2m myeloid neoplasms included a significantly higher proportion of MDS/MPN overlap cases in comparison with the SETBP1m/GATA2wt group. The SETBP1m/GATA2m group had a higher proportion of ZF2 GATA2m and SRSF2 co-mutation compared to patients with SETBP1wt/GATA2m. Survival of SETBP1m/GATA2m patients was not worse compared to SETBP1wt/GATA2m or SETBP1m/GATA2wt.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and brentuximab vedotin (BV) are novel agents for classic Hodgkin lymphoma, including relapse after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). However, their impact on survival post-ASCT relapse, in comparison with conventional therapy, is less known due to the lack of randomized controlled trials. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of 115 patients with relapse (or progression) after ASCT are studied. After a median follow-up of 8.59 years from post-ASCT relapse, the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 0.91 and 5.07 years, respectively. Median lines of therapy after post-ASCT relapse was 2 (range, 1–12). The median PFS was not reached (NR) versus 1.11 versus 0.50 versus 0.85 versus 0.78 years (P = 0.006) and OS was NR versus 7.60 versus 3.08 versus 3.51 versus 3.17 years (P = 0.28) in patients first treated with ICIs versus BV versus investigational agents versus chemotherapy versus radiation therapy (RT). First-line treatment with novel agents (ie, ICIs and BV) was associated with superior outcomes compared with investigational agents and chemotherapy/RT with a median PFS of 1.65 versus 0.50 versus 0.79 years (P = 0.003) and a median OS of 7.60 versus 3.08 versus 3.32 years (P = 0.08). Regardless of lines of therapy, the treatment with ICIs had the most favorable outcome with a median PFS and OS of 3.98 and NR years, respectively. Allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) was done in 23 patients (20%), and the median post-allo-SCT PFS and OS were 1.31 and 2.35 years, respectively. In conclusion, survival following post-ASCT relapse improves significantly when patients receive novel agents.

Abstract Introduction: Novel therapeutic agents such as immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and brentuximab vedotin (BV) are active in classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), including in patients that relapse after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). However, optimal management strategy is unclear for patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) cHL post-ASCT. The aim of the study is to determine the impact of novel agents relative to conventional therapy and allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) on survival outcomes of patients with cHL who relapsed after ASCT. Methods: Patients with RR cHL who underwent ASCT between 06/1993 and 10/2017 at 3 Mayo Clinic sites were included. Clinical characteristics, treatment information, and outcome data were abstracted. For patients who relapsed after ASCT, the post-relapse progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. Statistical analyses were done in JMP v15.2.1 and EZR v1.54. Results: A total of 332 patients with RR cHL who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT were identified. After a median post-ASCT follow-up of 8.6 years (range 6.8-9.7), 136 (41%) patients had a relapse or disease progression after ASCT. Patient characteristics of the 136 cases are summarized in the Table. The median age at post-ASCT relapse was 34 years (range 20-73), and 77 (57%) were male. 59 (43%) relapsed within 6 months and 77 (57%) relapsed after 6 months following ASCT. 59 (45%) had an extranodal site involvement at relapse. 14 (10%) had therapy with ICI or BV as salvage therapy prior to ASCT or maintenance therapy post-ASCT. The median post-relapse PFS and OS was 0.8 (95% CI 0.6-1.1) and 3.2 years (95% CI 2.2-5.5) years, respectively. Compared to patients who relapse after 6 months, patients who relapsed within 6 months of ASCT had worse post-relapse PFS (median 0.5 [0.3-0.7] vs 1.3 [0.9-1.9] years, p=0.0003) and OS (median 1.3 [0.5-2.2] vs 6.4 [3.7-10.4] years, p=0.0003). Extranodal site involvement at relapse was not associated with post-relapse PFS (median 0.7 [0.5-1.2] vs 0.9 [0.6-1.3] years, p=0.28) but was associated with worse post-relapse OS (median 2.7 [1.5-4.2] vs 6.4 [2.6-NA] years, p=0.006). Prior therapy with ICI or BV was not associated with post-relapse PFS (median 0.6 [0.3-NA] vs 0.8 [0.6-1.1] year, p=0.8) and OS (median NR [1.0-NA] vs 3.2 [2.2-5.5] years, p=0.5). After post-ASCT relapse, the median lines of subsequent therapy were 2 (range 1-12). For first post-ASCT salvage therapy, novel agents (ICI or BV), compared to other therapies, were associated with superior post-relapse PFS (median 1.7 [0.7-3.6] vs 0.7 [0.5-1.0] years, p=0.004) and OS (median 7.6 [4.7-NA] vs 3.2 [2.2-5.6], p=0.02). Allo-SCT following first post-ASCT relapse (n=9) was not associated with improvement in post-relapse PFS (median 2.2 years [0.3-NA] vs 0.8 [0.6-1.1] years, p=0.1) or OS (median NR [0.5-NA] vs 5.1 [3.2-7.3] years, p=0.7). Patients who received ICI or BV at any point post-ASCT relapse had significantly better post-relapse OS (median 7.6 [4.3-16.7] vs 2.2 [1.4-3.7] years, p=0.004) compared to those who never received any novel agent (Figure 1A). In contrast, allo-SCT at any point post-ASCT relapse (n=27) did not improve post-relapse OS (median 5.6 [2.7-NA] vs 4.7 [2.7-7.3] years, p=0.3) (Figure 1B). In multivariate Cox regression models adjusted for age and sex, exposure to ICI and/or BV was associated with superior post-relapse OS (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8, p=0.007); however, allo-SCT was not associated with improvement in post-relapse OS (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.4-1.5, p=0.5). Conclusions: Patients relapsing within 6 months of ASCT and those with extranodal involvement at relapse had inferior OS after post-ASCT relapse. Prior therapy with novel agents did not impact post-relapse survival outcomes. In the setting of post-ASCT relapse, novel therapeutic agents significantly improved survival outcomes while allo-SCT did not. Future multicenter studies are needed to explore the role of novel agents and allo-SCT in patients with RR cHL post-ASCT relapse. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InnoCare: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Tun: Gossamer Bio, Acrotech: Consultancy; Mundipharma, Celgene, BMS, Acrotech, TG therapeutics, Curis, DTRM: Research Funding. Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Habermann: Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding.