Zeidan, Amer M.

Abstract Introduction TP53MT are associated with poor outcomes in MDS, especially in the context of biallelic MT. We have previously reported on outcomes of pts with HR-MDS with TP53MT who received HMA in the VALIDATE dataset (Kewan T et al, ASH 2023). Here we provide expanded analyses focusing on outcomes post allo-HCT, and we explore the prognostic significance of different classification methods for biallelic TP53MT. Methods The VALIDATE database includes 4,732 pts with MDS who received HMA-based frontline therapy from 32 international centers in 9 countries. For this study, only pts with HR-MDS with molecular data at time of diagnosis were included. Biallelic TP53MT status was assessed using three classification schemes: WHO 2022, ICC 2022, and a VAF-based Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) method.1TP53 copy neutral loss of heterozygosity (CN-LOH) was evaluable in 386 pts (118 had TP53MT). Treatment responses were evaluated using IWG 2023 criteria (Zeidan A et al, Blood 2023). Composite complete remission (cCR) was defined as CR+CRbi+CRuni+CRh+CRequivalent. We calculated OS from time of HMA initiation to date of death or last follow up. Unsupervised clustering (MOSAIC framework) was applied to identify molecular subgroups within the TP53MT cohort. The study was funded by an independent grant from Abbvie. Results A total of 1,485 pts were included. Median age was 69 years (IQR: 62–76), with 66% male pts. Median bone marrow blast was 7%, and 28% had a complex karyotype. Treatment regimens included azacitidine (68%), decitabine (15%), HMA/Venetoclax (8%), and other HMA combinations (9%); 34% underwent allo-HCT. Overall, 392 (26%) had TP53MT with 430 TP53 mutations (missense: 316; truncating: 89). Biallelic TP53MT % varied by classification: 72% (WHO), 84% (ICC), and 85% (CCF). Compared to TP53 wild-type (TP53WT) pts, pts with TP53MT had worse OS (median: 11.5 vs. 23.9 months [mo], p< 0.001), were younger (68 vs. 70 years, p=0.039), and had lower counts at diagnosis. Complex karyotype (81% vs. 14%) and chromosomal abnormalities were more frequent in TP53MT pts. Pts with TP53MT also had fewer co-mutations in other genes. Response to HMA was evaluable in 1,094 pts: cCR and CR were 32% and 13%, respectively. TP53MT pts had higher cCR (39% vs. 29%, p=0.001) than TP53WT, but similar CR rates (16% vs. 12%, p=0.093). According to WHO 2022, biallelic TP53MT had higher CR rates than monoallelic TP53MT (18% vs. 8%, p=0.03), but similar cCR. ICC and CCF classifications did not differentiate response rates. Median OS did not differ by TP53MT allelic status using WHO or ICC definitions. However, using the CCF method, pts with biallelic TP53MT had shorter OS than monoallelic TP53MT (10.4 vs. 17.2 mo, p=0.038). In multivariable models adjusted for age, gender, and allo-HCT, only the CCF-defined biallelic TP53MT group had significantly worse OS (HR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1–2.4). TP53MT pts undergoing allo-HCT had improved OS regardless of allelic status. Median OS for TP53MT pts with allo-HCT was 18.9 vs. 9.2 mo without all-HCT. This benefit was observed across WHO, ICC, and CCF classifications. However, a TP53MT VAF ≥19% predicted worse OS even post allo-HCT (14.6 vs. 47.1 mo, p<0.001). At 1 year, the survival rate was 78% (95%CI: 69-89%) in TP53MT pts who underwent allo-HCT and had cCR vs. 68% (95%CI: 55-84%) in pts who did not have cCR. However, 1 year survival rate was significantly higher for pts with TP53MT who did not have allo-HCT and achieved cCR (60%, 95%CI: 48-76%) vs. no cCR (26%, 95%CI: 20-35%). Unsupervised clustering of 335 TP53MT pts identified 9 molecular clusters (MCs). MC2, characterized by low TP53MT VAF (median 17%), fewer co-mutations, and frequent del17p, was associated with significantly improved OS (17.9 mo) and predicted favorable outcome (HR for death: 0.6; 95% CI: 0.4–0.8). Other clusters were enriched for adverse features (e.g., high VAF, multi-hit TP53MT).Conclusions The CCF method appears to best classify biallelic TP53MT pts with worse survival in the absence of accurate assessment of LOH status. Treatment response per IWG 2023 for TP53MT pts was associated with OS only in non-transplanted pts. Allo-HCT improved survival across TP53MT subsets, but TP53 VAF ≥19% at diagnosis remained a strong negative prognostic factor. Integrative clustering revealed a less aggresive molecular subset among TP53MT pts, suggesting refined risk stratification may guide therapy in this high-risk population. Ref: 1.Bahaj et al. J Hematol Oncol 2023.

Abstract Introduction: Marrow complete remission (mCR) in 2006 IWG criteria for MDS (Cheson B et al, Blood 2006) reflects achieving bone marrow (BM) blast percentage below 5% but is frequently not associated with meaningful count recovery. While mCR + hematologic improvement (HI) does reflect wide ranges of count improvement or transfusion reductions, HI is difficult to measure accurately in routine clinical practice. The 2023 International Working Group (IWG) response criteria (Zeidan A et al, Blood 2023) eliminated the mCR category without meaningful count recovery and reclassified mCR associated with meaningful count recovery into specific “less-than-CR” categories. Still, many clinical trials continue to use mCR as a secondary efficacy endpoint or as a part of overall response rate (ORR). Within the icMDS VALIDATE database, we assessed the association of mCR with OS in hypomethylating agent (HMA)-treated higher risk (HR)-MDS patients among both (1) transplanted and (2) non-transplanted patients. Methods We included patients with HR-MDS (defined as IPSS ≥1.5 and/or IPSS-R >3.5) who received HMA-based therapies from the international icMDS VALIDATE dataset. We evaluated the best response by IWG 2006 criteria into CR, mCR, or no CR/mCR. We then reclassified patients with mCR per IWG 2023 criteria into either (A) having achieved a composite CR (cCR) defined as CR + CR equivalent (CRequ) + CR with bilineage count recovery (CRbi) + CR with unilineage count recovery (CRuni) + CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) or (B) not having achieved cCR (no cCR). OS was calculated from time of HMA initiation to date of death or last follow-up by using 6-month landmark analyses. We used Kaplan-Meier methods to estimate OS, and the Log-rank test to compare OS. VALIDATE is supported by an independent grant from AbbVie. Results A total of1049 patients met eligibility.Median age of patients was 69 (range 21-95), 64% were men. While 61% received azacitidine, 17% received decitabine, and 22% received HMA-based combination therapy. In total, 37% underwent subsequent allogenic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Based on IWG 2006 criteria, 17%, 33%, and 50% achieved CR, mCR, and no CR/mCR as their best response, respectively. Patients achieving CR had superior median OS (25 months, 95% CI: 21-34 months) compared to those with mCR (16 months, 95% CI: 13-18 months; p=0.038) and no CR/mCR (15 months, 95% CI: 12-17 months; p=0.001). In patients who received a subsequent allo-HCT, the median OS for patients with mCR (30 months, 95% CI: 21-54 months; 1 year OS: 71%, 2 year OS: 55%) did not significantly differ compared to patients with CR (59 months, 95% CI: 25 months-not reached, p=0.80; 1 year OS: 73%, 2 year OS 62%) and patients with no CR/mCR (32 months, 95% CI: 21-45 months, p=0.46; 1 year OS: 69%, 2 year OS 54%). In contrast, in patients treated with HMA therapy alone without subsequent allo-HCT, median OS for patients with mCR (11 months, 95% CI: 9-15 months; 1 year OS: 46%, 2 year OS: 23%) did not significantly differ compared to patients with no CR/mCR (11 months, 95% CI: 9-14 months, p=0.85; 1 year OS: 47%, 2 year OS: 22%) but was significantly shorter compared to patients with CR (20 months, 95% CI: 17-28 months, p<0.001; 1 year OS: 69%, 2 year OS: 46%). Patients with mCR by IWG 2006 (N=347) were reclassified per IWG 2023 into having either achieved a cCR (N=219, 63%) or no cCR (N=128, 37%). Specifically, patients with mCR were reclassified per IWG 2023 into CR (4.9%), CRequ (0.6%), CRbi (26.8%), CRuni (29.4%), CRh (1.4%), PR (0%), HI (10%), no response (21.9%) and PD (4.9%). Patients with mCR who were reclassified into cCR had an improved median OS (16 months, 95% CI: 15-26 months; 1 year OS: 62%; 2 year OS: 43%) compared to patients reclassified into no cCR per IWG 2023 (13 months, 95% CI: 11-17 months, p=0.023; 1 year OS: 52%; 2 year OS: 31%). Conclusions Using the large icMDS VALIDATE dataset, we found that achievement of mCR by 2006 IWG criteria was not associated with improved OS compared to patients who did not achieve CR/mCR. Reclassification of mCR using IWG 2023 highlights the heterogeneity within the mCR group and suggests that IWG 2023 criteria stratifies outcomes in patients previously labeled as mCR by IWG 2006. IWG 2023 should be the standard used for ORR assessment in all future clinical trials involving patients with HR-MDS.

Abstract Introduction: Leukemogenesis is driven by nucleophosmin 1 mutations(NPM1-m) or lysine methyltransferase 2A rearrangements(KMT2A-r) in ~35–40% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cases. Nearly half of AML patients will develop relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease within a year, with <20% expected response rate following venetoclax/azacitidine (Ven/Aza) and progressively poorer outcomes with each subsequent line of therapy. Ziftomenib–a potent, highly selective, oral, investigational menin inhibitor–has demonstrated clinical activity as both monotherapy and in combination for adults with R/R NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML. KOMET-007 (NCT05735184) is an ongoing, open-label, ph1a/b study of ziftomenib in combination with standard chemotherapies in adults with newly diagnosed and R/R NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML. Here we present updated safety and clinical activity in patients with R/R AML treated with the recommended ph2 dose (RP2D) of ziftomenib 600 mg in combination with Ven/Aza across ph1a/b. Methods: Adults (≥18y) with R/R NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML enrolled independently into separate arms; patients in dose escalation (ph1a) and expansion (ph1b) were treated with oral ziftomenib 600 mg once daily (QD; continuously from C1D8 onward) plus standard doses of Ven/Aza. Primary endpoints: AEs, complete remission (CR; ELN 2022), dose limiting toxicities (DLT; ph1a only). Key secondary endpoints: composite CR (CRc; CR with full, partial or incomplete hematologic recovery), overall response, duration of response. Results: As of June 25, 2025, 80 patients (51 NPM1-m, 29 KMT2A-r) with R/R AML were enrolled (20 ph1a; 60 ph1b) and treated with ziftomenib 600 mg QD + Ven/Aza. Median age was 63y (range 19–85), 50% were female, 74% had ECOG PS 0–1; 22 (28%) had FLT3 co-mutations and 7 (9%) had IDH co-mutations. Median number of prior therapies was 1 (range 1–6); 18% (14/80) had prior stem cell transplant; 25 (49%) NPM1-m and 19 (66%) KMT2A-r patients had prior Ven exposure. 71 patients (89%) had Gr ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs, most commonly (≥20% of patients) febrile neutropenia (31%), decreased platelet count (28%), decreased white blood cell count (26%) and decreased neutrophil count (23%). Gr ≥3 ziftomenib-related AEs occurred in 30 patients (38%), most commonly febrile neutropenia (9%) and anemia (8%). 6% of patients discontinued ziftomenib treatment due to AEs. Differentiation syndrome (DS) occurred in 1 (1%) NPM1-m patient (Gr 3), which lasted 1d and successfully resolved with protocol-specified DS mitigation. No ziftomenib-related QTc prolongation was reported with the combination, and no DLTs were observed in ph1a. 70 patients (43 NPM1-m; 27 KMT2A-r) were response-evaluable (≥1 response assessment or death). Median follow-up was 18.0 wks for NPM1-m and 16.4 wks for KMT2A-r. Overall response rates (ORRs) were 65% (28/43) for NPM1-m and 33% (9/27) for KMT2A-r. CRc rates were 49% (21/43) for NPM1-m and 22% (6/27) for KMT2A-r after median time to first CRc of 4.9 wks (range 2.7–15.6) and 5.5 wks (range 2.6–18.9), respectively; measurable residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates (local) among tested CRc responders were 50% (9/18) for NPM1-m and 60% (3/5) for KMT2A-r after median time to first MRD-negativity of 5.9 wks (range 2.9–15.6) and 8.1 wks (range 7.7–18.9), respectively. During continuous ziftomenib administration in patients who achieved CRc, median time to neutrophil recovery (≥1×109/L) was 43d overall (43d for NPM1-m; 71d for KMT2A-r), and median time to platelet recovery (≥100×109/L) was 27d overall (27d for NPM1-m; 23d for KMT2A-r). As of the data cutoff, overall median duration of CRc was not estimable; median overall survival was not estimable for NPM1-m and 21.1 wks for KMT2A-r. In Ven-naive patients, CRc rates were 71% (15/21) for NPM1-m and 33% (3/9) for KMT2A-r; CR rates were 48% (10/21) and 11% (1/9); and ORRs were 81% (17/21) and 56% (5/9), respectively. The study is ongoing with 44% (19/43) of NPM1-m and 11% (3/27) of KMT2A-r patients still on treatment, with responses continuing to evolve.Updated data to be presented.Conclusions: In the ongoing KOMET-007 study, ziftomenib RP2D of 600 mg QD + Ven/Aza was well tolerated with robust clinical activity in patients with R/R NPM1-mor KMT2A-rAML. No ziftomenib-related QTc prolongation was reported. One case of DS (NPM1-m, Gr 3) successfully resolved with protocol-specified mitigation. These data support further investigation of ziftomenib-based combinations in R/R NPM1-mand KMT2A-rAML.

Abstract Introduction: Nucleophosmin 1 mutations (NPM1-m) drive leukemogenesis in approximately 30% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cases. Ziftomenib is a potent, highly selective, oral, investigational menin inhibitor that has demonstrated clinical activity as both monotherapy and in combination for adults with NPM1-m or lysine methyltransferase 2A-rearranged (KMT2A-r) AML. KOMET-007 (NCT05735184) is an ongoing, open-label, dose-escalation (phase 1a) and expansion (phase 1b) study of ziftomenib in combination with standard chemotherapies in NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML. Here we present phase 1b safety and clinical activity in patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML who received the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of ziftomenib 600 mg in combination with venetoclax and azacitidine (Ven/Aza). Methods: Adults (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML who were not eligible for intensive chemotherapy were enrolled in phase 1b and received ziftomenib 600 mg once daily plus standard doses of Ven/Aza. Ziftomenib was orally administered once daily continuously from Cycle 1 Day 8 onward. Phase 1b primary endpoints were adverse events (AEs) and complete remission (CR) per ELN 2022. Secondary endpoints included composite CR (CRc; defined as CR with full, partial, or incomplete hematologic recovery), overall response, and duration of response. Local measurable residual disease (MRD) was assessed by next-generation sequencing, RT-qPCR, and multiparameter flow cytometry. Results: As of June 25, 2025, 39 patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML were enrolled and treated with ziftomenib 600 mg once daily plus Ven/Aza in phase 1b. Median age was 75 years (range 53–93), 54% were female, 46% had ECOG PS 0–1; 12 (31%) had FLT3 co-mutations and 9 (23%) had IDH co-mutations. Median duration of follow-up was 16.3 weeks (range 1.6–41.1). Twenty-nine patients (74%) had grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs, most commonly (≥20% of patients) decreased neutrophil count (31%) and decreased platelet count (23%). Grade ≥3 ziftomenib-related AEs occurred in 14 patients (36%), most commonly decreased neutrophil count (15%) and decreased platelet count (13%). No ziftomenib treatment discontinuations occurred due to AEs. Differentiation syndrome occurred in 1 (3%) patient (grade 2), which successfully resolved with protocol-specified mitigation. One patient (3%) had investigator-assessed ziftomenib-associated QTc prolongation (grade 3); however, there were concomitant significant electrolyte abnormalities and event resolved with electrolyte repletion. At time of data cutoff, 31 NPM1-m patients were response-evaluable (≥1 response assessment or death). CRc rate was 84% (26/31) after a median time to first CRc of 3.5 weeks (range 2.4–9.4), with local MRD-negativity rates among tested CRc responders of 54% (13/24) after a median time to first MRD-negativity of 8.4 weeks (range 2.9–17.4). CR rate was 58% (18/31) and overall response rate was 94% (29/31), with responses and MRD-negativity rates continuing to evolve. During continuous ziftomenib administration in patients who achieved CRc, median time to neutrophil recovery (≥1×109/L) was 36 days, and median time to platelet recovery (≥100×109/L) was 28 days. The median duration of response and median overall survival were not reached as of the data cutoff, at a median follow-up of 16.3 weeks. The study is ongoing, with 81% (25/31) of NPM1-m patients still on-study and 77% (24/31) still on ziftomenib treatment. Updated safety and clinical activity results will be presented.Conclusions: In the ongoing KOMET-007 study, ziftomenib RP2D of 600 mg once daily combined with Ven/Aza was well tolerated and demonstrated robust clinical activity in patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML, including 84% CRc after a median of 3.5 weeks and 54% CRc MRD-negativity after a median of 8.4 weeks. Low rates of ziftomenib-related cytopenia and no additional myelosuppression were observed with this combination. One case each of differentiation syndrome (grade 2) and investigator-assessed QTc (grade 3) were successfully resolved. Taken together, these data support the RP2D determination and advancement of this ziftomenib-based combination in the KOMET-017 (NCT07007312) randomized phase 3 study in patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML.

ABSTRACTBackgroundIn this study, we compared outcomes of intensified myeloablative conditioning regimens using large registry data from Japan (Japanese Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy) and the United States (Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research).MethodsAdult patients who underwent their first myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for acute leukemia in remission between 2010 and 2018 using conditioning regimens of cyclophosphamide plus total‐body irradiation (CY/TBI), CY/TBI+cytarabine (AraC), or CY/TBI+etoposide (VP16) were included.ResultsThe acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cohort (N = 480, 38.8%) indicated that overall survival (OS) was poorer in CY/TBI+AraC (hazard ratio [HR] 1.46, p < 0.001) and CY/TBI+VP16 (HR 1.39, p = 0.059) compared to CY/TBI. Relapse was not suppressed, while treatment‐related mortality (TRM) was significantly higher (HR 1.78 and 1.74, p < 0.001 and 0.018, respectively). In the acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) cohort (N = 3901, 61.2%), OS was comparable among these regimens. With intensified regimens, relapse was significantly suppressed in CY/TBI+VP16 (HR 0.74, p = 0.005), while TRM was higher (HR 1.21, p = 0.077). No interactions were observed regarding the country.ConclusionIn AML adding AraC and VP16 to CY/TBI had an adverse effect on OS. Conversely, in ALL, adding VP16 or AraC to CY/TBI did not affect survival, but the addition of VP16 reduced the risk of relapse.Clinical Trial RegistrationThe authors have confirmed clinical trial registration is not needed for this submission.

6538 Background: TP53 mutated ( TP53 mt ) high-risk myeloid neoplasm (HR-MN) confers a dismal prognosis in the contemporary era with only a subset of eligible patients (pts) able to achieve long-term remission with allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Owing to poor outcomes, many physicians believe it is futile to treat older pts with disease-directed therapy, since curative intent allo-HCT cannot be offered. We sought to describe the outcomes of older pts with TP53 mt HR-MN receiving disease directed treatment. Methods: We conducted a multicenter observational study in collaboration with 11 U.S. academic centers under the COMMAND consortium. We reviewed the data of 451 older (≥ 60 years [yrs]) TP53 mt HR-MN (n= 282 acute myeloid leukemia [AML], n= 91 MDS transformed AML, n= 50 myeloproliferative neoplasm blast phase (MPN-BP) and n= 28 high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes [HR-MDS]) pts to analyze their outcome with disease directed treatment. Results: The median age was 70 yrs (range [R],60-90) and 58% were male. Proportions of pts with age ≥ 70 yrs were 47.5%. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) was available in 68% (n= 306) of pts; 10.5%, 49%, 32% and 8.5% had ECOG-PS 0-3, respectively. The median bone marrow (BM) blast % was 32 (R, 5-99) and TP53 variant allele frequency (VAF) was 45% (R, 2-97). The proportion of pts with multi-hit (MH) TP53 mt and complex cytogenetics (CG) was 83% and 82%, respectively. 43 %, 31%, 20% and 6% received hypomethylating agent (HMA) + venetoclax, intensive chemotherapy, HMA and other low-intensity therapy, respectively. The complete remission rate with or without count recovery (CR/CRi) amongst evaluable patients (n= 356) was 37%. The median duration of response was 6.7 months (mo) (R, 5.9-7.5). Amongst 56 (12%) pts who underwent allo-HCT, the median overall survival (mOS) from time of allo-HCT was 21.9 mo. The mOS among pts ≥ 70 yrs was 6.5 mo. The mOS in mo was better in HR-MDS (16.4), compared to de novo AML (6.5), MDS transformed AML (7.1) and MPN-BP (5.27), p= 0.003. We conducted multivariable analysis for OS using baseline variables that were significant/ showed trend towards significance, on univariate analysis ( p <0.1). HR-MDS (HR; 0.43, 95% CI: 0.23-0.82, p= 0.01), CR/CRi (HR; 0.55, 95% CI: 0.39-0.77, p= <0.001) and allo-HCT (HR; 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16-0.47, p= <0.001) positively impacted OS. Whereas age ≥ 70 yrs showed trends towards inferior OS (HR; 1.31, 95% CI: 0.95-1.80, p=0.09). Complex CG (HR; 1.63, 95% CI: 0.83-3.21, p =0.15) and MH TP53 mut (HR; 1.30, 95% CI: 0.67-2.52, p= 0.42) did not retain significance for OS. Conclusions: Our multi-center study suggests that disease directed treatment in older TP53 mt HR-MN leads to modest response rates with short durations of response in the absence of allo-HCT. 12% of pts were able to receive allo-HCT with improvement in OS close to 2 yrs. The decision to treat this poor risk gp of pts should be based on individual pt characteristics and desires.

SummaryFrom a historical perspective, the treatment landscape of myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) has experienced a standstill in terms of new approvals by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration up until the recent 5 years. The widespread availability of comprehensive genome sequencing has shed insight into human MDS biology toward the goal of rational therapeutic design. This new knowledge has inspired the development of investigational therapies that extend beyond the scope of traditional erythropoiesis‐stimulating agents and hypomethylating agents. We describe how these contemporary treatment options are changing the management paradigms for lower‐risk and higher‐risk MDS, based on the landmark trial data. We discuss investigational therapies in the MDS pipeline, such as venetoclax, emavusertib, canakinumab and olutasidenib. We highlight challenges and solutions to the successful translation of emerging therapies based on our improved understanding of the biology of MDS, including the genomics of MDS with mutated TP53. We discuss how the identification of biomarkers of response to therapeutics may help guide clinical trial design for certain subsets of patients. Finally, we discuss how multicentre randomized trials can help facilitate the clinical rollout of emerging MDS therapeutics.

Abstract Excessively restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria in clinical trials are one of many barriers to clinical trial enrollment for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDSs). Many organizations are developing efforts to increase clinical trial eligibility; yet, several recent publications focused on patients with MDS suggest that many patients with this disease may be excluded from clinical trials unnecessarily. Clinical trial eligibility should reflect the phase of the study and risks of the agent being studied. Phase 3 trials should be less restrictive than early-phase trials to represent the real-world population as closely as possible. We hypothesize that many clinical trials, particularly phase 3 trials, have unnecessarily restrictive eligibility criteria. This study aims to evaluate the most common eligibility criteria according to phase of trial and to determine whether criteria correspond with drug safety signals. We identified MDS clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 January 2000 to 1 September 2023 and analyzed the eligibility criteria of 191 therapeutic MDS trials. We found that categorical inclusion and exclusion criteria are remarkably similar in representation across trial phases. Additionally, only 13% of trials are concordant with drug safety signals, suggesting that the eligibility criteria are often arbitrary. On behalf of the icMDS (International Consortium for Myelodysplastic Syndromes), an association of international MDS experts, we provide a position statement on restrictive eligibility criteria for MDS clinical trials that should be avoided with the aim of removing barriers to clinical trial enrollment.

Abstract Myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDSs) are heterogeneous stem cell malignancies characterized by poor prognosis and no curative therapies outside of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Despite some recent approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration, (eg, luspatercept, ivosidenib, decitabine/cedazuridine, and imetelstat), there has been little progress in the development of truly transformative therapies for the treatment of patients with MDS. Challenges to advancing drug development in MDS are multifold but may be grouped into specific categories, including criteria for risk stratification and eligibility, response definitions, time-to-event end points, transfusion end points, functional assessments, and biomarker development. Strategies to address these challenges and optimize future clinical trial design for patients with MDS are presented here.