Alkabbani, Oudai

ABSTRACT Background IDH mutations are found in 15%–20% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Recent evidence suggests that IDH mutation subtypes may respond differently to intensive chemotherapy. We evaluated blast clearance patterns, remission outcomes, and overall survival (OS) in AML patients with IDH2 R140, IDH2 R172, and IDH1 R132 mutations to assess differences in treatment response. Methods We retrospectively reviewed AML patients diagnosed at Mayo Clinic, Rochester (2016–2023) with NGS data and treated with intensive chemotherapy (7+3 or CPX‐351). Bone marrow blasts were assessed at diagnosis, mid‐induction, and end‐of‐cycle; blast clearance was defined as < 5%. Composite remission (CRc) included CR/CRi per ELN 2022. IDH2 responders were classified as early (after Cycle 1) or late (≥ 2 cycles). Blast reduction was calculated as log 10 (diagnosis blasts/end‐induction blasts) and normalized per day. OS was measured from diagnosis. Results Among 381 patients, 31 had IDH2 mutations (23 R140, 8 R172) and eight had IDH1 R132. Baseline blasts were similar. Mid‐cycle blasts were lower in R140 versus R172 (4% vs. 10%), with higher clearance (68% vs. 38%). End‐induction blasts were lower in R140 versus R172 (2% vs. 4%) with higher clearance (100% vs. 75%). IDH1 and IDH2 showed similar clearance patterns. Log 10 analyses showed deeper and faster blast reduction in R140 versus R172, with comparable kinetics between IDH1 and IDH2 . OS did not differ across subtypes. Early CRc in IDH2 ‐mutated patients was associated with numerically longer OS. Conclusion IDH2 R140 demonstrated faster blast clearance than R172, while remission and survival were similar across IDH subtypes. Trial Registration : The authors have confirmed clinical trial registration is not needed for this submission.

Abstract Introduction The European Leukemia Net (ELN) 2022 stratified acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients (pts) treated with intensive chemotherapy (IC) into three groups based on genetic features. ELN 2024 (Döhner et al, Blood) and Beat AML 2024 (Hoff et al, Blood Advances) proposed revised systems to better capture the impact of genetic features in pts receiving less-intensive therapy (LIT). Real-world validation across treatment settings, including allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT), is warranted. Methods We evaluated the performance of ELN 2022, ELN 2024, and Beat AML 2024 among AML pts treated at Mayo Clinic from 2016 to 2025. Only treated pts with available molecular data included. Response was assessed according to the ELN 2022 criteria. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from diagnosis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard (CPH) models were used to adjust for covariates. Model performances were assessed using Harrell's c-index. Results 426 AML pts (median age 68 years; 60% male) were included; 195 (46%) received IC and 231 (54%) received LIT, while Allo-HCT was performed in 133 (31%) pts. Complex karyotype was present in 126 (30%) and normal cytogenetics in 143 (34%) pts. Molecular mutations included TP53 (20%), TET2 (18%), DNMT3A (16%), SRSF2 (16%), RUNX1 (16%), ASXL1 (16%), and NPM1 (15%). Among evaluable pts (83%), complete remission (CR) after first-line therapy was achieved in 47%. Risk group assignments varied: ELN 2022 vs. ELN 2024 classified pts as favorable (20% vs. 55%), intermediate (20% vs. 24%), and adverse (60% vs. 20%); Beat AML 2024 categorized pts as favorable (41%), intermediate (21%), and adverse (38%). ELN 2024 reclassified 229 (54%) pts of whom 5% upstaged and 49% downstaged, primarily affecting ELN 2022 adverse (67%) and intermediate (46%) groups. Among LIT-treated, CR rates did not differ across groups in any classification. Per ELN 2024, CR was achieved in 43% (favorable), 67% (intermediate), and 29% (adverse) of the LIT-treated pts. However, among IC-treated pts, CR was higher in favorable/intermediate vs. adverse groups across all models (p&lt;0.0001). Allo-HCT was most common in ELN 2024 intermediate (41%) and favorable (32%) vs. adverse (16%) groups. Median OS (months; 95% CI) for the entire cohort was 15.7 (12.5–20.9) with median follow-up time of 49.8 (40.9-55). By ELN 2022, OS of the entire cohort was 49.4 (30.7–NA) for favorable, 50.0 (29.2–NA) for intermediate, and 8.8 (7.7–11.2) for adverse (p&lt;0.0001). Per ELN 2024, OS of the entire cohort was 25.4 (18.5–37.3), 20.3 (13.4–39.8), and 5.7 (3.4–8.2), respectively (p&lt;0.0001). Beat AML 2024 stratified OS of the entire cohort as 42.5 (30.7–NA), 11.4 (9.3–16.7), and 5.6 (3.5–8.0) for favorable, intermediate, and adverse groups (p&lt;0.0001). ELN 2024 stratified the OS of the pts treated with LIT as 15.7 (10.1-24.9), 8.0 (4.9-13.9), and 6.8 (3.4-10.2) for favorable, intermediate and adverse risk groups, (p &lt;0.0001). Among ELN 2022 adverse-risk pts, those reclassified as favorable per ELN 2024 had superior OS (15.0, 9.8–22.7) compared to intermediate (7.8, 5.0–9.3) or adverse (5.4, 3.3–8.0) risk groups, p&lt;0.0001. C-index (95% CI) for OS in the entire cohort was highest for Beat AML 2024 (0.658, 0.629–0.688), followed by ELN 2022 (0.627, 0.599–0.655), and ELN 2024 (0.600, 0.568–0.631). In LIT-treated pts, ELN 2024 (0.597, 0.558–0.637) and Beat AML 2024 (0.586, 0.545–0.627) outperformed ELN 2022 (0.559, 0.521–0.596). Among allo-HCT pts, regardless of treatment type, ELN 2022 (0.610, 0.539–0.681) performed better than ELN 2024 (0.568, 0.487–0.648). In multivariable CPH models adjusted for age, bone marrow blasts, treatment intensity, and complex karyotype, ELN 2022 and ELN 2024 adverse-risk groups had higher hazard of death (HR 2.4, 1.6–3.5 and HR 1.7, 1.1–2.5, respectively, vs. favorable). No significant difference was observed between intermediate and favorable risk for ELN 2022 (HR 1.4, 0.9–2.2) or ELN 2024 (HR 1.4, 0.9–1.9). Allo-HCT was associated with a lower hazard of death (HR 0.4, 0.3–0.5). Conclusions In this real-world AML cohort, ELN 2024 and Beat AML 2024 improved OS prediction in LIT-treated pts compared to ELN 2022. This advantage was not observed in allo-HCT pts. Multivariable analysis confirmed the adverse-risk group as having the worst prognosis across all models. These findings highlight the importance of aligning molecular risk stratification with treatment modalities to enhance prognostication in AML.

Abstract Background Missense mutations in IDH1 are well-established therapeutic targets in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In contrast, the synonymous IDH1 variant p.Gly105Gly (rs11554137), present in 5–10% of AML cases, has been considered a benign polymorphism due to its high population frequency (5.7% overall, 0.7–10.5%) and lack of protein-altering effect. However, prior studies have associated this variant with inferior outcomes (Wagner, J Clin Oncol, 2010), though findings have been inconsistent. Few studies have examined its prognostic significance in the context of treatment intensity or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT). Methods With IRB approval, clinical and genomic data were extracted from the Mayo Clinic AML database for patients diagnosed between Jan 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2025. Patients were stratified by IDH1 Gly105Gly (rs11554137) status via NGS on bone marrow. Outcomes included co-mutation profiles, treatment response, measurable residual disease (MRD) by multiparametric flow cytometry, and survival. Multivariable Cox and logistic regression models for relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were adjusted for age at diagnosis, ELN 2022 risk category, and SCT conditioning regimen. Results Among 379 AML patients, 36 (9.5%) harbored the IDH1 Gly105Gly (rs11554137) variant (cases) (median VAF 49%, IQR 48–49.2). In the full cohort, median age was 68 years (IQR 59–74), M:F ratio was 1.5; 75% had de novo AML, and median follow-up was 52 months. Among cases, common cytogenetic abnormalities included complex karyotype (28%), del(7q) (14%), and trisomy 8 (6%), while frequently mutated genes included DNMT3A (19%), IDH2 (17%), and BCOR (14%). Of 345 treated patients, 43% received intensive, and 56% received low-intensity regimens, including hypomethylating agent (HMA) alone (n=13), HMA+venetoclax (n=159), and targeted therapy (n=7). Among cases, complete remission (CR) rates were higher with intensive vs. low-intensity therapy (70% vs. 17%, p=0.03). MRD positivity post induction was more common in cases (66% vs. 26%, p=0.01), suggesting suboptimal leukemic clearance. Among 103 patients who underwent allogeneic SCT in CR1 (47% received myeloablative conditioning), morphologic relapse occurred in 64.3% of cases compared to 23.6% of controls (p = 0.004). Cases experienced significantly inferior median RFS (8 months [95% CI 5–NA] vs. not reached for controls, p &lt;0.001), indicating more durable post-SCT remission in the control group. In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age, ELN risk, conditioning intensity, MRD status, and complex karyotype, the IDH1 Gly105Gly variant remained independently associated with shorter RFS (HR 3.97, 95% CI: 1.74–9.05, p = 0.001). Complex karyotype was also an independent predictor of relapse (HR 3.35, 95% CI: 1.28–8.73, p = 0.014). Consistent with this, logistic regression revealed a significantly increased odds of post-SCT relapse among cases (OR 7.95, 95% CI: 2.19–35.27, p=0.001), independent of clinical covariates. Relapsed cases were significantly more likely to harbor FLT3-ITD mutations than relapsed controls (p=0.041). Pathway-level analysis revealed increased frequency of mutations in signal transduction genes (FLT3-ITD, CSF3R, NF1) (p=0.002). All CNS relapses among cases occurred in patients harboring at least one of these mutations. Despite the higher relapse rate, there were no significant differences in OS (14.4 vs. 11.3 months, p=0.36) between cases and controls. The IDH1 Gly105Gly variant was not independently associated with OS (HR 1.26, p=0.30). In contrast, age (p&lt;0.0001) and adverse ELN risk (p&lt;0.0001) were significant predictors of inferior OS. These findings suggest that the prognostic impact of IDH1 Gly105Gly is most pronounced in the post-SCT setting. Conclusion The synonymous IDH1 Gly105Gly variant (rs11554137) is an independent predictor of post-SCT relapse in AML, potentially mediated by co-occurring mutations in signal transduction pathways. Despite no observed impact on OS, likely due to effective salvage therapies, the variant's link to lower CR rates with low-intensity therapy and higher MRD burden suggests treatment intensity influences its clinical relevance. These findings support reevaluating the prognostic role of synonymous variants in AML and call for larger studies and mechanistic investigations into splicing, transcript stability, and translation.

Abstract Background: Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations are frequently implicated in the development of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In a recent study (Salman MY, Blood Adv 2025), it was reported that IDH2 mutation subtypes, R140 and R172, may respond differently to intensive chemotherapy. In this study, we evaluated mid-cycle and end-of-cycle bone marrow blast responses in AML patients with IDH2 R140, IDH2 R172, and IDH1 R132 mutations, aiming to determine whether these subtypes exhibit different response dynamics. Methods: We reviewed the charts of AML patients diagnosed at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, between the years 2016 - 2023 that had available next generation sequencing (NGS) data. Institutional review board approval was obtained. All data were recorded at the time of AML diagnosis. Patients without molecular data or not treated with intensive chemotherapy (7+3 or CPX-351) were excluded from this study. Bone marrow blast percentages were assessed at mid-induction (days 14-21) and end of cycle (counts recovery). Blast clearance dynamics and complete remission rates were compared across IDH mutation subgroups and correlated with outcomes. GraphPad Prism 10.0.0 was used for statistical analysis. Results: Out of 381 AML patients, 31 had IDH2 mutations (23 with R140 and 8 with R172), and 8 had IDH1 mutations (all R132). Among patients with IDH2 mutations, those with R172 had numerically higher median mid-cycle bone marrow blast percentage compared to R140 (10% vs. 4%, p = 0.37). There was no significant difference in mid-cycle blast percentages between patients with IDH1 and IDH2 mutations (4.5% vs. 4%, p = 0.8). At mid-cycle, 68% of patients with IDH2 R140 had blast counts &lt;5%, compared to 38% of those with IDH2 R172, suggesting a trend for faster mid-cycle clearance in the R140 group, though not statistically significant (OR 3.57, p = 0.2). In a broader comparison, 60% of IDH2-mutated patients and 50% of IDH1-mutated patients achieved blast clearance (blasts &lt;5%) at mid-cycle, though not statistically significant (p = 0.7). At the end of the induction, patients with IDH2 R140 had significantly lower median bone marrow blast percentages compared to those with R172mutations (2% vs. 4%, p = 0.01). Similarly, patients with IDH1 mutations showed low blast counts compared to the IDH2 group (1.5% vs. 3%, p = 0.1). A higher proportion of IDH2 R140 patients achieved blast clearance compared to those with R172 mutations (100% vs. 75%, p = 0.06), while proportion of patients who achieved blast clearance were similar between IDH1 and IDH2 patients (87.5% vs 93.1%, P = 0.5). Analysis of overall complete remission rates (including both complete remission [CR] and CR with incomplete hematologic recovery [CRi]) within the IDH2-mutated group showed a higher rate in patients with the R140 mutation compared to those with R172 (87% vs. 75%), though the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.5). When comparing IDH1- and IDH2-mutated patients, overall complete remission rates were 75% and 84%, respectively, with no significant difference observed (p = 0.6). Kaplan–Meier analysis of time to end-of-induction blast clearance revealed no statistically significant difference between IDH2 R140 and R172 patients (median time to clearance: 31 vs. 37 days, p = 0.3). Similarly, no difference was observed between IDH1 and IDH2-mutated patients (33 vs. 31 days, p = 0.9). Overall survival analyses showed no significant difference between IDH2 R140 and R172 groups (median 66.8 months vs not reached, P = 0.4). Likewise, no difference was observed between IDH1 and IDH2 patients (44.4 months vs not reached, P = 0.7), indicating similar overall survival across mutation subtypes. Conclusion: IDH2-R140 was associated with more effective blast cytoreduction following intensive induction compared to IDH2-R172. Although not statistically significant, IDH2 R172consistently showed trends toward higher blast percentages, delayed response, and lower overall complete remission rates. These findings align with the recent study reporting significantly slower blast reduction and delayed response in R172-mutated AML. Also, no significant differences were found between IDH1- and IDH2-mutated patients in terms of response kinetics or overall survival. Together, these findings highlight potential biological differences among IDH mutation subtypes that may impact treatment response and require further investigation in larger prospective cohorts.

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: &gt; 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&lt;0.001) along with an increase in peripheral blasts (median, 28% vs. 7%) (p&lt;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.