Reichard, Kaaren K.

Background: Biallelic TP53 alterations result from either sequence variations or deletions involving TP53 and are not necessarily synonymous with “multi-hit TP53”. According to the 2022 international consensus classification (ICC) for myeloid neoplasms (MN), multi-hit TP53 signifies i) the presence of two or more distinct TP53 mutations, each with variant allele frequency (VAF) ≥10%, ii) a single TP53 mutation with VAF ≥50%, or iii) a single TP53 mutation with VAF ≥10% accompanied by a cytogenetically-apparent del(17p13.1), copy-neutral loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at the 17p TP53 locus, or, in the absence of LOH information, complex karyotype ( Arber et al. Blood 2022;140: 1200). The current study is focused on MN with multi-hit TP53 and examines the additional prognostic impact of morphologic subtype designation, bone marrow (BM) or peripheral blood (PB) blast percentage, TP53 VAF, and MN with diagnostic qualifiers (i.e., therapy-related, or secondary progressing from myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative/overlap syndromes/neoplasms). Methods : The current study was conducted under an institutional review board approved minimum risk protocol that allowed retrospective collection and analysis of data from Mayo Clinic patient records. Multi-hit TP53 was defined as per ICC criteria as outlined above ( Arber et al. Blood 2022;140: 1200). Morphologic subtype designations of MN were according to ICC criteria and assigned at the time of TP53 detection. NGS and cytogenetic information was available in all study patients. Survival analyses were calculated from time of TP53 mutation detection. Conventional statistical methods were applied using JMP Pro 16.0.0 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Results : Initial screening flagged 143 patients with biallelic TP53 abnormalities derived from formal laboratory reports of NGS data and cytogenetic studies; of these, 130 met ICC criteria for multi-hit TP53: pure erythroid leukemia (PEL; N=24), acute myeloid leukemia (AML)-not PEL (N=54), myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS; N=36), MDS/AML (N=11), and other MN (N=5). Of these 130 informative cases, 128 (98%) harbored complex/monosomal karyotype (CK/MK). Further analysis excluded patients with “other” MN (N=5) and those without CK/MK (N=2), the latter to mitigate the confounding effect of CK/MK on survival and the former because of small sample size and disease heterogeneity. Clinical and laboratory characteristics of the 124 study patients are outlined in table 1. Survival analysis stratified by ICC-defined MN subtypes revealed the prognostic relevance of morphological distinction between PEL vs “AML-not PEL” (p<0.01; HR 2.4) and PEL vs “ TP53-muated MDS/AML” (p=0.02; HR 2.3) while survival was similar between “AML-not PEL” and “ TP53-mutated MDS/AML” (p=0.9; Figure 1a). Survival in “ TP53-mutated MDS” was significantly longer, compared to PEL (p<0.01; HR 0.2), “ TP53-mutated AML-not PEL” (p=0.01; HR 0.5), and “ TP53-mutated MDS/AML” (p=0.07; HR 0.5), the latter with borderline significance (Figure 1a). Multivariable analysis confirmed the independent prognostic relevance of ICC subtype designation (p<0.01) and also revealed additional negative prognostic contribution from advanced age (p=0.02), male gender (p=0.02), MN, secondary (p<0.01), MN, therapy-related (p=0.03), and DNMT3A mutation (p=0.02). Significance was retained in all instances, with the exception of MN, therapy-related (p=0.15), when analysis was repeated after excluding PEL cases (Figure 1b). Conclusions : The current study confirms the prognostic validity of the ICC morphologic subtype designation and TP53 VAF classification threshold, in the context of multi-hit TP53. The study also highlights the prognostic distinction between PEL and “ TP53-mutated AML-not PEL” and the prognostic alignment between the latter and “ TP53-muated MDS/AML”, both of which displayed inferior survival, compared to “ TP53-mutated MDS”. The study also suggests additional prognostic contribution from secondary and therapy-related qualification while the observation regarding DNMT3A mutation requires validation with higher number of informative cases.

Abstract VEXAS (Vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X‐linked, Autoinflammatory, Somatic) syndrome is a newly identified disease caused by somatic alterations in UBA1 which produce a recalcitrant inflammatory state along with hematologic disturbances. Patients with VEXAS can have a wide spectrum of clinical symptoms and providers should be familiar with the heterogeneity of associated clinical features. While hematologic parameters may be generally non‐specific, peripheral blood features of macrocytosis, monocytopenia, and/or thrombocytopenia coupled with bone marrow vacuolization of erythroid or myeloid precursors should raise suspicion for this condition. Due to an increased mortality, prompt recognition and accurate diagnosis is paramount. Access to testing for confirmation of UBA1 variants is not yet universally available but clinicians should understand the current available options for genetic confirmation of this disease. Treatment options are limited due to lack of prospective clinical trials but cytokine directed therapies such as interleukin‐6 inhibitors and JAK–STAT inhibitors as well as hypomethylating agents such as azacitidine have shown evidence of partial effect. Though cases are limited, allogeneic stem cell transplantation holds promise for durable response and potential cure. The intent of this review is to outline the pathophysiology of VEXAS syndrome and to provide a practical approach to diagnosis and treatment.

AbstractThe World Health Organization (WHO) classification system categorizes advanced systemic mastocytosis (SM‐Adv) into aggressive SM (ASM), mast cell leukemia (MCL), and SM with associated hematological neoplasm (SM‐AHN). By contrast, the International Consensus Classification (ICC) requires “immature” MC cytomorphology for the diagnosis of MCL and limits SM‐AHN to myeloid neoplasms (SM‐AMN). The current study includes 329 patients with SM‐Adv (median age 65 years, range 18–88; males 58%): WHO subcategories SM‐AHN (N = 212; 64%), ASM (N = 99; 30%), and MCL (N = 18; 6%); ICC subcategories SM‐AMN (N = 190; 64%), ASM (N = 99; 33%), and MCL (N = 9; 3%); WHO‐defined MCL with “mature” MC cytomorphology and SM‐AHN associated with lymphoid neoplasms were operationally labeled as “MCL‐mature” (N = 9) and SM‐ALN (N = 22), respectively, and distinguished from ICC‐defined MCL and SM‐AMN. Multivariable analysis that included the Mayo alliance risk factors for survival in SM (age >60 years, anemia, thrombocytopenia, increased alkaline phosphatase) revealed more accurate survival prediction with the ICC versus WHO classification order: (i) survival was significantly worse with MCL‐immature versus MCL‐mature (hazard ratio [HR] 15; p < .01), (ii) prognostic distinction between MCL and SM‐AHN/AMN was confirmed in the context of ICC (HR 9.3; p < .01) but not WHO classification order (p = .99), (iii) survival was similar between MCL‐mature and SM‐AMN (p = .18), and (iv) SM‐AMN (HR 1.7; p < .01) but not SM‐ALN (p = .37) was prognostically distinct from ASM. The current study provides evidence for the independent prognostic contribution of both the ICC system for SM‐Adv and the Mayo alliance risk factors for survival in SM.

Abstract We surveyed the performance of ponatinib, as salvage therapy, in a real-world setting of chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML-CP). Among 55 consecutive patients (median age 49 years) with relapsed/refractory CML-CP, 35 (64%) had failed ≥ 3 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), 35 (64%) were pre-treated with nilotinib, and 14 (28%) harbored ABL1T315I. At start of ponatinib (median dose 30 mg/day), 40 patients were already in complete hematologic (CHR), 4 in complete cytogenetic (CCyR), 3 in major molecular (MMR) remission, while 8 had not achieved CHR (NR). Ponatinib improved the depth of response in 13 (33%), 3 (75%), 2 (66%), and 4 (50%) patients with CHR, CCyR, MMR, and NR, respectively (p = 0.02). At a median follow-up of 42 months, 13 (23%) deaths, 5 (9%) blast transformations, and 25 (45%) allogeneic transplants were recorded. Five/10-year post-ponatinib survival was 77%/58% with no significant difference when patients were stratified by allogeneic transplant (p = 0.94), ponatinib-induced deeper response (p = 0.28), or a post-ponatinib ≥ CCyR vs CHR remission state (p = 0.25). ABL1T315I was detrimental to survival (p = 0.04) but did not appear to affect response. Prior exposure to nilotinib was associated with higher risk of arterial occlusive events (AOEs; 11% vs 0%; age-adjusted p = 0.04). Ponatinib starting/maintenance dose (45 vs 15 mg/day) did not influence either treatment response or AOEs. Our observations support the use of a lower starting/maintenance dose for ponatinib in relapsed/refractory CML-CP but a survival advantage for deeper responses was not apparent and treatment might not overcome the detrimental impact of ABL1T315I on survival. The association between prior exposure to nilotinib and a higher risk of post-ponatinib AOEs requires further validation.

TPS7089 Background: Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) is a myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative overlap neoplasm (MDS/MPN) that can be further divided into MD (WBC < 13 x 109/L) and MP (≥13 x 109/L) subtypes. MP-CMML is enriched in RAS pathway mutations ( NRAS, CBL, KRAS, PTPN11 and NF1), has a shorter median survival (19 vs 36 months), has a higher rate of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) transformation (40% vs 10%) and has a unique transcriptomic and epigenetic composition. These RAS pathway mutations promote selective PLK1 overexpression, a mitotic checkpoint kinase. Given the relative inefficacy of hypomethylating agents (HMA) in MP-CMML and previously demonstrated in vitro and in vivo efficacy data for PLK1 inhibition on MP-CMML with RAS pathway mutations, we designed a phase 1 clinical trial testing the safety of onvansertib, a novel, orally bioavailable, PLK1 inhibitor in relapsed/refractory MP-CMML. Methods: This is an investigator-initiated, prospective, open-label, phase I study of onvansertib in MP-CMML relapsed/refractory (RR) or intolerant to existing therapies including HMA and hydroxyurea. The primary endpoint is characterization of safety. Secondary endpoints include efficacy as defined by the 2015 MDS/MPN International Working Group criteria, volumetric spleen response and symptom response via assessment with MPN-SAF-TSS. Inclusion criteria include MP-CMML RR following hydroxyurea or at least 4-cycles of HMA or intolerance of treatment with either, platelets ≥ 20,000/m3 and Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance ≥ 60 mL/min/m2. Hydroxyurea may continue for the first 28 days on study. Onvansertib will be given orally on days 1 through 21 of a 28-day cycle with a Bayesian optimal interval design to assess the safety and recommended phase II dose. Exploratory end points include targeting efficacy, impact of PLK1 and KMT2A expression and interactions with ASXL1 and TET2 mutations. Twenty-five patients will be enrolled at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, with enrollment open since November 2022. Clinical trial information: NCT05549661 .

Abstract Objective To retrospectively identify patients with VEXAS syndrome (vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic syndrome) among male patients with bone marrow vacuolization using a clinically applicable, targeted-screening approach. Methods Bone marrow reports from 1 May 2014 through 18 February 2022 were reviewed for documentation of cytoplasmic vacuolization. Patients with acute leukaemia, lymphoma, metastatic solid tumour, amyloidosis or POEMS (polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal protein, skin changes) syndrome were excluded, as were those without clinical records available for direct chart review. Cases were rated for suspicion of VEXAS syndrome using a 5-point scale based on the presence of laboratory findings, clinical features and treatment response. Patients with available DNA material and moderate (three patients) or high (four to five patients) suspicion were tested for somatic UBA1 variants associated with VEXAS syndrome. Results A total of 315 reports from 292 unique patients included documentation of vacuolization. Following exclusion criteria, 64 patients underwent direct medical chart review to assess likelihood of VEXAS syndrome, for which 21 patients met moderate to high suspicion. Available DNA was present in eight patients, seven (87.5%) of whom had a pathogenic somatic UBA1 variant consistent with VEXAS syndrome. The distribution of cytoplasmic vacuolization in the bone marrow biopsy reports among patients with VEXAS syndrome were erythroid and myeloid precursors (6/7), erythroid precursors only (1/7) and myeloid precursors only (0/7). Conclusion In this study, the utilization of a clinically applicable targeted-screening approach to test bone marrow specimens (with vacuolization) for the presence of previously undiagnosed VEXAS syndrome resulted in a positive detection rate of 87.5%.