Gangat, Naseema

Abstract Abstract 430 Background: The Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS-plus) uses eight risk factors to predict overall survival (OS) in primary myelofibrosis (PMF): unfavorable karyotype, peripheral blood (PB) blast count ≥1%, platelet count <100 × 109/L, white blood cell count (WBC) >25 × 109/L, hemoglobin level <10 g/dL, red blood cell transfusion need, constitutional symptoms, and age >65 years (JCO 2011;29:392). Among these risk factors, karyotype holds a dominant role in predicting both overall (OS) and leukemia-free (LFS) survival (Blood 2011;118:4595). More recently, certain PMF-associated somatic mutations (IDH, EZH2, ASXL1, SRSF2) have been reported (in print or at recent meetings) to carry prognostic relevance for OS or LFS in PMF while other mutations (JAK2, MPL, TET2, SF3B1) did not. The purpose of the current study was to examine the individual and combined prognostic relevance of the former in the context of cytogenetic risk stratification and DIPSS-plus. Methods: An updated Mayo Clinic database of 1008 karyotypically- and DIPSS-plus-annotated patients with PMF was used to identify study patients in whom DNA at time of referral was available for mutation analysis. OS and LFS were calculated from the time of referral, which was also the time of study sample collection. Results: In an ongoing project, a total of 397 PMF patients have so far been studied for IDH1/2 (n=367), SRSF2 (n=355), ASXL1 (n=260) and EZH2 (n=43) mutations. The corresponding mutational frequencies were 5.4% (20/367), 14.4% (51/355), 31.2% (81/260) and 7% (3/43). These mutations were not exclusive of either each other or JAK2 or MPL mutations and a significant clustering was noted between SRSF2 and IDH mutations; IDH mutational frequency was 21% (10/48) in SRSF2-mutated versus 3% (9/279) in unmutated cases (P<0.0001). Mutational hotspots were P95 in exon 1 for SRSF2 and exons 1, 2 and 5 for ASXL1. OS and LFS effect have so far been examined for ASXL1, SRSF2 and IDH 1/2 mutations; in univariate analysis, all three mutations significantly affected OS (ASXL1 RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4–2.7; SRSF2 RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2–2.5; IDH 1/2 RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1–3.1) whereas only IDH 1/2 (RR 5.5, 95% CI 2.5–11.8) and SRSF2 (RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.7–7.0) but not ASXL1 (p=0.29) mutations affected LFS. The observed prognostic relevance for OS was sustained during multivariable analysis that included ASXL1 with either SRSF2 or IDH mutations, as co-variates, whereas both IDH and SRSF2 mutations remained significant for LFS. Based on the above observations, study patients were classified into two groups: i) unmutated for ASXL1, SRSF2 and IDH1/2 (all unmutated; n=146) and ii) mutated for at least one of the three mutations (one or more mutated; n=130); the latter group constituted 62%, 52%, 18% and 27% of DIPSS-plus high, intermediate-2, intermediate-1and low risk patients, respectively (p<0.0001). The corresponding rates for patients with favorable and unfavorable karyotype were 47% and 43% (p=0.7) and for normal vs. abnormal karyotype were 53% and 36% (p=0.008). The “all unmutated group”, compared to the “one or more mutated group” enjoyed a significantly superior OS (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4–0.7) and LFS (RR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2–0.7) that was DIPSS-plus-independent for OS (p=0.03) and karyotype-independent for LFS (p=0.004). The prognostic value of distinguishing “all unmutated” from “one or more mutated” patient groups was most evident for DIPSS-plus intermediate-2 or lower risk groups (p=0.002) and its added value for high-risk group was limited (p=0.23) (Figure). Conclusions: A concomitant analysis strategy reveals that SRSF2, ASXL1 and IDH mutations carry inter-independent prognostic relevance for overall or leukemia-free survival in PMF. Any one of these three mutations is more likely to occur in patients with normal karyotype and such an event predicts shortened survival that is not accounted for by DIPSS-plus and a higher risk of leukemic transformation that is independent of karyotype. The current study suggests that such information might be useful in treatment decisions involving intermediate-2 or lower risk patients. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 423 Background: Cytogenetic abnormalities at diagnosis are seen in 20–70% of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). The International Prognostic Scoring System -revised (IPSS-R) classifies these cytogenetic abnormalities into five prognostic groups: very good (del(11q), ΠY with overall survival (OS) of 61 months); good (normal, del(20q), del(5q), del(12p) with OS 49 months); intermediate (+8,7q-, i(17q),+19,+21 with OS 26 months); poor (der(3)q21/q26, −7, complex with 3 abnormalities with OS 16 months); and very poor (complex with >3 abnormalities with OS of 6 months) (Schanz J, JCO 2012, Greenberg P, Blood 2012). Monosomal karyotype (MK) is defined as the presence of two or more autosomal monosomies or a single monosomy associated with a structural abnormality. We have previously shown that MK identifies a prognostically worse subgroup of MDS patients with a complex karyotype (Patnaik M, Leukemia 2010). Objectives: Methods: The Mayo Clinic database for MDS was used to identify patients in whom bone marrow histologic and cytogenetic information was obtained at the time of diagnosis. WHO criteria were used for MDS diagnosis and leukemic transformation. Results: i) Patient characteristics: A total of 1,014 patients met the above-stipulated criteria. Median age of the cohort was 71 years (range: 18–98 years) with 684 (67%) males. 819 patients (81%) had primary MDS with 195 cases (19%) of therapy-related MDS. 759 patients (75%) are dead at a median follow-up of 18 months (range: 0–223 months) with leukemic transformation documented in 125 cases (12%). IPSS-R risk distribution was as follows: very low (n=149, 15%), good (n=261, 26%), intermediate (n=221, 22%), high (n=131, 13%), and very high (n=252, 25%). ii) IPSS-R karyotype (Entire cohort; n=1,014): The five cytogenetic groups by IPSS-R were as follows: very good (n=43, 4%), good (n=577, 57%), intermediate (n=187, 18%), poor (n=83, 8%), and very poor (n=124, 12%). We evaluated the prognostic impact of the above groups by Kaplan Meier and Cox proportional hazards analysis. OS for the five cytogenetic groups was as follows: good (36 months), very good (28 months), intermediate (20 months), poor (13 months), and very poor (6 months) (Figure 1). OS of patients with very good karyotype was significantly better than patients with very poor and poor karyotype (p<0.0001, RR 3.2 and p=0.04, RR 1.6 respectively) but similar to patients with intermediate and good karyotype (p=0.22 and 0.28 respectively). iii) IPSS-R karyotype (Primary MDS; n=819): Cytogenetic risk groups by IPSS-R were as follows: very good (n=38, 5%), good (n=512, 63%), intermediate (n=153, 19%), poor (n=46, 6%), and very poor (n=70, 9%). OS of the five groups was as follows: good (39 months), very good (23 months), intermediate (21.5 months), poor (14.5 months), and very poor (6.5 months). OS of patients with very good karyotype was significantly better than patients with very poor karyotype (p=0.0002, RR 2.5) but similar to patients with poor, intermediate and good karyotype (p=0.23, 0.26 and 0.18 respectively). iv) Monosomal karyotype: MK was identified in 153 (15%) cases of which 4 cases were intermediate, 42 poor, and 107 very poor by IPSS-R. OS of patients with MK was similar to those with very poor karyotype (6 months). In addition, OS of patients with very poor without MK was akin to patients with poor without MK (p=0.21). Furthermore, among primary MDS we identified 83 (8%) cases of MK of which 4 were intermediate, 21 were poor, and 58 very poor by IPSS-R. We confirmed that OS of patients with MK was similar to patients with very poor karyotype (6.5 months). Moreover, survival of patients with very poor without MK was similar to patients with poor without MK (p=0.51). Conclusions: In this independent analysis of 1,014 patients with MDS, IPSS-R cytogenetic risk characterization failed to discriminate between very good, good and intermediate prognostic groups. In addition, patients with very poor without MK have a similar prognosis to patients with poor without MK and should be included in the poor category whereas the presence of MK should warrant inclusion into the very poor risk category. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Purpose: Myelofibrosis is characterized by bone marrow fibrosis, atypical megakaryocytes, splenomegaly, constitutional symptoms, thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications, and a risk of evolution to acute leukemia. The JAK kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib provides therapeutic benefit, but the effects are limited. The purpose of this study was to determine whether targeting AURKA, which has been shown to increase maturation of atypical megakaryocytes, has potential benefit for patients with myelofibrosis. Patients and Methods: Twenty-four patients with myelofibrosis were enrolled in a phase I study at three centers. The objective of the study was to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of alisertib. Correlative studies involved assessment of the effect of alisertib on the megakaryocyte lineage, allele burden, and fibrosis. Results: In addition to being well tolerated, alisertib reduced splenomegaly and symptom burden in 29% and 32% of patients, respectively, despite not consistently reducing the degree of inflammatory cytokines. Moreover, alisertib normalized megakaryocytes and reduced fibrosis in 5 of 7 patients for whom sequential marrows were available. Alisertib also decreased the mutant allele burden in a subset of patients. Conclusions: Given the limitations of ruxolitinib, novel therapies are needed for myelofibrosis. In this study, alisertib provided clinical benefit and exhibited the expected on-target effect on the megakaryocyte lineage, resulting in normalization of these cells and reduced fibrosis in the majority of patients for which sequential marrows were available. Thus, AURKA inhibition should be further developed as a therapeutic option in myelofibrosis. See related commentary by Piszczatowski and Steidl, p. 4868

AbstractHypomethylating agents (HMA) are currently the only FDA approved therapy for patients with chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). In the current retrospective study, we assessed response rates as adjudicated by the IWG (International Working Group) MDS (myelodysplastic syndrome) and MDS/MPN myeloproliferative neoplasm overlap syndrome response criteria, in 121 CMML patients treated with Azacitidine (AZA, n = 56) and Decitabine (DAC, n = 65). The overall response rates were 41% by the IWG MDS (AZA‐ 45%, DAC‐39%), and 56% by the IWG MDS/MPN (AZA‐56%, DAC‐58%) response criteria, with CR (complete remission) rates of <20% for both agents, by both criteria. There were no significant differences in response rates between proliferative and dysplastic CMML. Moreover, 29% of CMML patients in a CR with HMA progressed to AML (blast transformation), underscoring the limited impact of these agents on disease biology. Progression after HMA response was associated with a median overall‐survival (OS) of 8 months, while median OS in patients with primary HMA failure was 4 months. Lower serum LDH levels (<250 Units/L) were associated with HMA responses by both criteria; while ASXL1 and TET2 mutational status had no impact. HMA treated patients had a longer median OS (31 vs 18 months; P = .01), in comparison to those treated with conventional care regimens (excluding observation only patients), without any differences between AZA vs DAC (P = .37). In conclusion, this study highlights the inadequacies of HMA therapy in CMML, retrospectively validates the IWG MDS/MPN response criteria and underscores the need for newer, rationally derived therapies.

Abstract JAK2 mutations in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are associated with the germline GGCC (46/1) haplotype. In 2010, we reported an association between shortened survival in primary myelofibrosis (PMF) and nullizygosity for the JAK2 46/1 haplotype. In the current study, we have increased the number of informative cases from 130 to 414 (median age 63 years; 63% males), in order to revisit with the phenotypic and prognostic relevance of the JAK2 46/1 haplotype in PMF. JAK2 46/1 haplotype was documented in 69% of the study patients, including 25% in homozygous and 44% in heterozygous state. Driver mutation frequency in patients homozygous/heterozygous/nullizygous for the 46/1 haplotype was 78%/60%/56% JAK2, 10%/20%/18% type 1‐like CALR, 3%/2%/5% type 2‐like CALR, 4%/8%/7% MPL, and 6%/10%/14% triple‐negative (P = .02). In univariate analysis, nullizygosity for the JAK2 46/1 haplotype was associated with inferior overall survival (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1‐1.9), most pronounced in JAK2 (P <.001), as opposed to CALR/MPL mutated (P = .48) or triple‐negative cases (P = .27). Multivariable analysis that included karyotype, driver mutational status and high‐molecular risk mutations confirmed the independent prognostic contribution of nullizygosity for the 46/1 haplotype (P = .02; HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1‐1.8). Nullizygosity for 46/1 also remained significant in the context of the genetically‐inspired GIPSS risk model (P = .04), but not in the context of the integrated genetics‐clinical MIPSS70+ version 2.0 model (P = .4). Leukemia‐free survival was not affected by the 46/1 haplotype (P = .6). The current study confirms the association of nullizygosity for the JAK2 GGCC (46/1) haplotype with inferior survival in JAK2‐mutated PMF.