Elliott, Michelle

Abstract Venetoclax (Ven) combined with a hypomethylating agent (HMA) has now emerged as an effective treatment regimen for acute myeloid leukemia, in both de novo and relapsed/refractory setting. The current multicenter study retrospectively examined Ven + HMA treatment outcome among 32 patients (median age 69 years; 59% males) with blast‐phase myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN‐BP). Pre‐leukemic phenotype included essential thrombocythemia (ET)/post‐ET myelofibrosis (34%), polycythemia vera (PV)/post‐PV myelofibrosis (38%) and primary myelofibrosis (28%). Twenty‐nine study patients were fully annotated cytogenetically and molecularly (NGS): 69% harbored complex karyotype and/or mutations, including TP53 (41%), IDH1/2 (21%), ASXL1 (21%), N/KRAS (14%), SRSF2 (10%), EZH2 (10%) and U2AF1 (7%). All patients received Ven combined with either azacitidine ( n = 12) or decitabine ( n = 20); either up front ( n = 23) or after failing another induction therapy ( n = 9). Complete remission with (CR) or without (CRi) count recovery was achieved in 14 (44%) patients and was more likely to occur in the absence of pre‐leukemic PV/post‐PV myelofibrosis phenotype ( p < .01), complex karyotype ( p < .01) or K/NRAS ( p = .03) mutations; seven of eight patients (88%) without vs four of 21 (19%) with complex karyotype or K/NRAS mutation achieved CR/CRi ( p < .01); all 11 informative patients with pre‐leukemic PV/post‐PV myelofibrosis phenotype displayed complex karyotype ( p < .01). In contrast, neither TP53 ( p = .45) nor IDH1/2 ( p = .63) mutations affected response. Compared to historical controls treated with HMA alone ( n = 26), the CR/CRi rate (44% vs 4%) and median survival (8 vs 5.5 months) were more favorable with Ven + HMA, but without significant difference in overall survival. Importantly, six patients with CR/CRi subsequently received allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT). Note, Ven + HMA produces robust CR/CRi rates in MPN‐BP, especially in the absence of RAS mutations and complex karyotype, thus enabling AHSCT, in some patients.

AbstractVenetoclax and hypomethylating agent (HMA) combination therapy is FDA‐approved for elderly or unfit acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients unable to withstand intensive chemotherapy. The primary objective of the current study was to impart our institutional experience with the above regimen, outlining response, survival outcomes, and its determinants amongst 86 treatment‐ naïve and relapsed/refractory AML patients. A total of 44 treatment‐naïve AML patients, median age 73.5 years, enriched with secondary, therapy related and ELN adverse risk disease (n = 27) were studied. The CR/CRi rates of 50% (22 of 44 patients) were superior to 23% in a matched AML cohort treated with HMA alone (P = .005). Response rates were similar with TP53, FLT3, NPM1 and IDH mutations (P = .31). Moreover, CEPBA mutations (P = .03) and neutropenia (P = .05) emerged as predictors of complete response. Survivalwas prolonged in patients achieving CR/CRi (17 vs 3 months without CR/CRi, P < .001; conversely adverse ELN risk portended inferior survival. Amongst 42 relapsed/refractory AML patients, half received ≥2 prior therapies excluding transplant, and 15 (35.7%) had received HMA. A group of 14 patients (33.3%) attained CR/CRi; age > 65 years, AML with myelodysplasia, JAK2, DNMT3A, and BCOR mutations predicted complete response. Survival distinctions were based on CR/CRi (median survival 15 vs 3 months with/without CR/CRi; P < .001), and TP53 mutation status (P = .04). In summary, we corroborate existing reports demonstrating superior response and prolonged survival with venetoclax and HMA in treatment ‐naïve and relapsed/refractory AML patients regardless of genotype. Additionally, we identify unique predictors of response to therapy which require validation.

AbstractDisease overviewChronic neutrophilic leukemia (CNL) is a rare, often aggressive myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) defined by persistent mature neutrophilic leukocytosis, bone marrow granulocyte hyperplasia, and frequent hepatosplenomegaly. The seminal discovery of oncogenic driver mutations in colony‐stimulating factor 3 receptor (CSF3R) in the majority of patients with CNL in 2013 anchored a new scientific framework, deepening our understanding of its molecular pathogenesis, providing a diagnostic biomarker, and rationalizing the use of pharmacological targeting.Diagnostic criteriaIn 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) included the presence of activating CSF3R mutations as a central diagnostic feature of CNL. Other criteria include leukocytosis of ≥25 × 109/L comprising >80% neutrophils with <10% circulating precursors and rare blasts, and absence of dysplasia or monocytosis, while not fulfilling criteria for other MPN.Disease updatesIncreasingly comprehensive genetic profiling of CNL has disclosed a complex genomic landscape and additional prognostically relevant mutational combinations. Though prognostic determination and therapeutic decision‐making remain challenging, emerging data on prognostic markers and the use of newer therapeutic agents, such as JAK inhibitors, are helping to define state‐of‐the‐art management in CNL.

AbstractFirst‐line cytoreductive drug of choice in high risk essential thrombocythemia (ET) is currently hydroxyurea, a practice based on the results of a randomized study; second‐line drugs of choice include pegylated interferon‐α, busulfan and anagrelide. Anagrelide clinical trials were pioneered by the late Murray N. Silverstein (1928‐1998) of the Mayo Clinic whose studies led to FDA approval in March 1997. The current study represents a retrospective examination of the potential impact of anagrelide therapy on survival and disease complications in ET. 1076 patients with ET were considered (median age 58 years; females 63%); risk distribution, according to the international prognostic score for ET (IPSET), was 28% high, 42% intermediate, and 30% low. Overall (OS), myelofibrosis‐free (MFFS) and thrombosis‐free survival data were compared for ET patients diagnosed before and after the 1997 FDA approval date for anagrelide; a significant difference was apparent in OS (P = .006; HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1‐1.7) and MFFS (P < .001; HR 4.2, 95% CI 2.7‐6.5), in favor of patients diagnosed prior to 1997; the difference was sustained during multivariable analysis that included IPSET. Similarly stratified survival data in polycythemia vera (n = 665) and primary myelofibrosis (n = 1282) showed no similar impact on survival (P = .3 and .17, respectively). The current study represents a retrospective analysis and suggests significantly decreased OS and MFFS in ET patients diagnosed after the FDA approval date of anagrelide. Whether or not anagrelide therapy was to blame for the worsening of OS and MFFS over time cannot be assumed and requires validation in a prospective study.