Sekeres, Mikkael A

Myelodysplastic syndromes with isolated deletion of chromosome 5q [MDS-del(5q)] constitute a distinct biological entity traditionally associated with favorable outcomes, although up to one quarter of patients progress to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Existing prognostic models, developed in heterogeneous MDS populations, may not adequately capture risk within this subgroup. We assembled an international cohort of 682 patients with MDS-del(5q) to evaluate the performance of the IPSS-R and IPSS-M, identify prognostic variables, and develop a disease-specific prognostic tool, the IPSS-del(5q). Most patients were classified as lower-risk by IPSS-R (94.4%) and IPSS-M (85.5%), yet both systems showed limited discriminatory ability (C-indices ≈0.5). Independent adverse prognostic factors included age ≥70 years, male sex, anemia (hemoglobin ≤10 g/dL), thrombocytopenia (platelets ≤100×10⁹/L), the presence of one additional chromosomal abnormality, ≥2 gene mutations, SF3B1 mutations, and high-risk TP53 status. Six variables were included in the IPSS-del(5q), stratifying patients into standard-risk (74.3%) and high-risk (25.7%) groups with significantly different LFS (69.2 vs. 32.0 months; p<0.01). Moreover, this model reclassified 19.1% of lower-risk IPSS-R and 14.6% of lower-risk IPSS-M patients into the high-risk IPSS-del(5q) group. However, its discriminative power remained modest, with a C-index of 0.60. Overall, this study provides the most comprehensive prognostic evaluation of MDS-del(5q) to date, demonstrates the limited discriminatory capacity of existing MDS scores in this entity, and underscores the need to develop refined disease-specific prognostic approaches for this MDS subtype.

Abstract Patients at risk for progression from myeloid precursor states (idiopathic cytopenia of undetermined significance [ICUS] and clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance [CCUS]) to myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) are not well defined. Epidemiologic risk factors, clonal changes for MDS development, and evolution from one MDS state to another were available in the MDS Natural History Study (NHS), a prospective cohort enrolled at diverse US sites. Extensive clinical data and biospecimens were collected at baseline and follow-up. A total of 1177 (56%) individuals with MDS or MDS-related precursor conditions (ICUS/idiopathic dysplasia of undetermined significance [IDUS], CCUS, and MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm overlap) were enrolled and diagnosed in the MDS NHS. The median age was 74 years, with 89% aged ≥60 years, and most were male patients. Median follow-up time was 1.6 years and was similar among ICUS/IDUS, CCUS, and MDS. During follow-up period, 68% of participants terminated the study, 35% died, and 38% had disease progression. Using a refined clinical definition of progression, the greatest proportion of progression was observed among higher-risk-MDS (116 [73%]), followed by lower-risk-MDS (170 [52%]); fewer progression events were observed among participants with CCUS (65 [22%]) and ICUS/IDUS (46 [17%]). Predictors of progression are delineated, including female sex, higher quantity of mutations, the presence of TP53 mutation, and poor/very poor cytogenetic score. Based on these prospective data, guidelines for clinical management including monitoring and surveillance are outlined. The MDS NHS provides real-world data to illustrate how clinical and genotypic differences inform the classification, disease course, and approach to therapy, with informed monitoring guidelines for patients. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02775383.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE To provide guidance on the recommended management of cancer in pregnant patients. METHODS A multidisciplinary Expert Panel convened and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS The systematic review identified 450 eligible studies. Much of the evidence consisted of observational data, case series, and case reports. RECOMMENDATIONS Management of cancer during pregnancy should be grounded in a values-based informed-consent process outlining maternal and fetal risks and anticipated benefits. Diagnostic evaluation should follow the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle, with timing of diagnostic studies individualized based on urgency of cancer detection, potential dangers of delay, and the balance of risks to both the pregnant patient and her embryo or fetus. Due to significant risk of harm to the developing embryo and/or fetus, systemic therapy should be deferred until the second trimester. Methotrexate, hormonal therapies, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted agents, vascular endothelial growth factor and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and all cellular therapies are contraindicated during pregnancy, regardless of gestational age. For patients who wish to continue their pregnancy, delivery should be planned at or after 37 weeks, with the final chemotherapy dose scheduled 2-4 weeks before birth. Referral to psychosocial support services is essential to address emotional and practical challenges, reduce distress, and support shared decision making. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

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.

Abstract Myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) are a collection of hematopoietic disorders with widely variable prognoses and treatment options. Accurate pathologic diagnoses present challenges because of interobserver variability in interpreting morphology and quantifying dysplasia. We compared local clinical site diagnoses with central, adjudicated review from 918 participants enrolled in the ongoing National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute National MDS Natural History Study, a prospective observational cohort study of participants with suspected MDS or MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). Locally, 264 (29%) were diagnosed as having MDS, 15 (2%) MDS/MPN overlap, 62 (7%) idiopathic cytopenia of undetermined significance (ICUS), 0 (0%) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with <30% blasts, and 577 (63%) as other. Approximately one-third of cases were reclassified after central review, with 266 (29%) diagnosed as MDS, 45 (5%) MDS/MPN overlap, 49 (5%) ICUS, 15 (2%) AML with <30%, and 543 (59%) as other. Site miscoding errors accounted for more than half (53%) of the local misdiagnoses, leaving a true misdiagnosis rate of 15% overall, 21% for MDS. Therapies were reported in 37% of patients, including 43% of patients with MDS, 49% of patients with MDS/MPN, and 86% of patients with AML with <30% blasts. Treatment rates were lower (25%) in cases with true discordance in diagnosis compared with those for whom local and central diagnoses agreed (40%), and receipt of inappropriate therapy occurred in 7% of misdiagnosed cases. Discordant diagnoses were frequent, which has implications for the accuracy of study-related and national registries and can lead to inappropriate therapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT05074550.

BackgroundAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is fatal in elderly patients who are unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival benefit of administering sapacitabine, an oral nucleoside analogue, in alternating cycles with decitabine, a low‐intensity therapy, to elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML.MethodsThis randomized, open‐label, phase 3 study (SEAMLESS) was conducted at 87 sites in 11 countries. Patients aged ≥70 years who were not candidates for or chose not to receive standard induction chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to arm A (decitabine in alternating cycles with sapacitabine) received 1‐hour intravenous infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 8 weeks (first cycle and subsequent odd cycles) and sapacitabine 300 mg twice daily on 3 consecutive days per week for 2 weeks every 8 weeks (second cycle and subsequent even cycles) or to control arm C who received 1‐hour infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks. Prior hypomethylating agent therapy for preexisting myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms was an exclusion criterion. Randomization was stratified by antecedent myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms, white blood cell count (<10 × 109/L and ≥10 × 109/L), and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs <50%). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were the rates of complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete platelet count recovery, partial remission, hematologic improvement, and stable disease along with the corresponding durations, transfusion requirements, number of hospitalized days, and 1‐year survival. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01303796).ResultsBetween October 2011 and December 2014, 482 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine (study arm, n = 241) or decitabine monotherapy (control arm, n = 241). The median OS was 5.9 months on the study arm versus 5.7 months on the control arm (P = .8902). The CR rate was 16.6% on the study arm and 10.8% on the control arm (P = .1468). In patients with white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L (n = 321), the median OS was higher on the study arm versus the control arm (8.0 vs 5.8 months; P = .145), as was the CR rate (21.5% vs 8.6%; P = .0017).ConclusionsThe regimen of decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine was active but did not significantly improve OS compared with decitabine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with baseline white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L might benefit from decitabine alternating with sapacitabine, with an improved CR rate and the convenience of an oral drug. These findings should be prospectively confirmed.

PURPOSE Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only potentially curative therapy for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), although it is infrequently offered to older patients. The relative benefits of HCT over non-HCT therapy in older patients with higher-risk MDS have not been defined. METHODS We conducted a multicenter biologic assignment trial comparing reduced-intensity HCT to hypomethylating therapy or best supportive care in subjects 50-75 years of age with intermediate-2 or high-risk de novo MDS. The primary outcome was overall survival probability at 3 years. Between January 2014 and November 2018, we enrolled 384 subjects at 34 centers. Subjects were assigned to the Donor or No-Donor arms according to the availability of a matched donor within 90 days of study registration. RESULTS The median follow-up time for surviving subjects was 34.2 months (range: 2.3-38 months) in the Donor arm and 26.9 months (range: 2.4-37.2 months) in the No-Donor arm. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the adjusted overall survival rate at 3 years in the Donor arm was 47.9% (95% CI, 41.3 to 54.1) compared with 26.6% (95% CI, 18.4 to 35.6) in the No-Donor arm ( P = .0001) with an absolute difference of 21.3% (95% CI, 10.2 to 31.8). Leukemia-free survival at 3 years was greater in the Donor arm (35.8%; 95% CI, 29.8 to 41.8) compared with the No-Donor arm (20.6%; 95% CI, 13.3 to 29.1; P = .003). The survival benefit was seen across all subgroups examined. CONCLUSION We observed a significant survival advantage in older subjects with higher-risk MDS who have a matched donor identified and underwent reduced-intensity HCT, when compared with those without a donor. HCT should be included as an integral part of MDS management plans in fit older adults with higher-risk MDS.