Mangaonkar, Abhishek A.

Abstract Background: SARS-Cov-2 infections are associated with increased mortality and morbidity, largely due to inflammatory cascades and cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is defined by the presence and subsequent expansion of somatic, leukemia-associated driver mutations in apparently healthy individuals with normal blood counts. CHIP has been associated with increased inflammation, with cytokines such as IL1-b, IL6 and TNF-a being elevated at baseline in affected individuals. We hypothesized that the presence of CHIP in patients with COVID-19 would result in excessive inflammation-related mortality and morbidity. Methods: We used the Mayo Clinic COVID-19 database to identify patients with COVID-19 on whom peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were available for research use (IRB approved). We carried out target-capture next generation sequencing for 220 CH related genes, by previously described methods (1000 x coverage, variant allele fraction/VAF detection limit >0.5%; Kusne Y et al AJH 2021). CHIP was defined by the presence of a CH mutation with a VAF>1% in an individual with normal baseline blood counts. Demographics, blood counts, and inflammatory markers (CRP and cytokine levels- ELISA assay) at COVID-19 diagnosis and during follow-up (as clinically indicated) were collected. COVID-19 disease severity was classified based on the presence and severity of CRS, graded using the Penn Grading Scale (Porter et. al., 2018), and the WHO ordinal scale (WHO Blueprint, 2020). We used Fisher's exact test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare categorical and continuous variables. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. We accounted for differences in age and sex using multivariable-adjusted proportional hazards regression models. Results: Seventy-two CHIP mutations were detected in 56 (25%) of the 227 patients with COVID-19 that had PBMC available; median age 69 years (range; 42-99 years), 61% male. Fifteen (26%) patients had 2 CHIP mutations, while 1 patient had 3 CHIP mutations. Common mutations encountered included DNMT3A (32%) , TET2 (19%) , SF3B1 (8%) , ASXL1 (6%) , MPL (5%) , and TP53 (5%; Figure 1A). COVID-19 patients with CHIP were older in age (median 69 vs 57 years; p<0.0001) and had higher baseline MCP-1 (p=0.04) levels. However, there were no differences in sex, comorbidities, blood counts, IL1-b, IL6 and TNF-a levels between the two groups. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 9 months. The relative change from baseline in blood counts and inflammatory markers (CRP and cytokines) during follow-up was similar in CHIP and non-CHIP patients, with the exception that COVID-19-onset neutropenia was more common in CHIP patients (8% vs 1%; p=0.017) compared to those without CHIP. At last follow up neutropenia had resolved in all patients. Both groups had comparable number of patients with CRS (61% CHIP vs 53% non-CHIP patients, p=0.354, Figure 1B), however, CHIP patients had more severe CRS (median Penn Grade 3 versus 2 in non-CHIP, p=0.018, Figure 1C). Based on the WHO ordinal scale, CHIP patients were more likely to experience hospitalization with severe disease and death (61% versus 45% in non-CHIP, p = 0.049). Moreover, COVID-19 CHIP patients experienced worse overall survival in comparison to patients without CHIP (median 13.1 months vs not reached, p<0.001, Figure 1D). This association remained consistent after adjusting for age and sex at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis (HR 3.15, 95% 1.32 - 7.55, p = 0.010). At last follow-up, 22 deaths were documented: 13 (23%) in patients with CHIP and 9 (5%) in the non-CHIP group (p=0.02), with the primary cause for mortality being hypoxic respiratory failure (62% in CHIP vs 44% non-CHIP, p=0.04). Conclusions: In this study, we observe an age-independent impact of CHIP on COVID-19 associated inflammatory morbidity (CRS) and mortality (hypoxemic respiratory failure). We are currently carrying out detailed single cell (ssDNA, RNA and ATAC-seq) and proteomic studies (O-link PEA assays) to better elucidate this pathophysiology. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Patnaik: Kura Oncology: Research Funding; StemLine: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is defined by the presence and subsequent expansion of leukemia-associated driver mutations (MT). These MT predominantly involve epigenetic regulators such as DNMT3A, ASXL1, and TET2 (DAT, 75%). CHIP is a disease of aging and is associated with increased all-cause mortality. Clonal Hematopoiesis (CH), when present in the context of unexplained cytopenias and MT variant allele fractions (VAF) >20%, is termed as clonal cytopenias of undetermined significance (CCUS). Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) is a hematological malignancy characterized by TET2, ASXL1, and SRSF2MT as well as sustained monocytosis. It usually arises in the setting of existing CH and clonal monocytosis. Here, we assessed the clonal compositions involving DAT genes in patients (pts) with CHIP, CCUS, and CMML. Methods: We included 1008 pts: 54 (5%) with CHIP, 334 (33%) with CCUS, and 620 (62%) with CMML. Demographics, laboratory parameters, and mutational spectrum at diagnosis were collected. We characterized and compared DAT MT in all three cohorts and assessed correlations with clinical parameters. MT locus and type along with protein sequences were analyzed using ProteinPaint. All statistical analyses were performed using R. Results: Of the 1008 pts, 427 (42%) had DAT MT; 36 had CHIP (67%); 96 had CCUS (29%), and 296 had CMML (48%). The median age was 71 years (IQR 65-76), and 68% were male. CMML pts had higher white blood cell counts, absolute neutrophil counts, absolute monocyte counts, and lower hemoglobin and platelet counts in comparison to CCUS and CHIP pts. The distribution of age and sex were similar among the three groups. After a median follow-up of 11 months (IQR 9.5-12.8), there were no myeloid progressions in the CHIP group and 17 (18%) in the CCUS group (8 of which developed CMML, Table 1). There were 738 protein-altering or splice-site DATMT in 495 unique MT hotspots. Pts with TET2MT were older (71 years, compared to DNMT3AMT: 69 years and ASXL1MT: 69 years , p<0.022). ASXL1MT were more common in males (75%, compared to DNMT3AMT: 52% and TET2MT: 66%, p=0.005). The mean VAF (mVAF) were 15.5% for DNMT3AMT, 35% for ASXL1MT and 39.2% TET2MT, respectively (p<0.001). We then compared DATMT characteristics in CHIP, CCUS, and CMML groups: DNMT3AMT were most common in CHIP, followed by CCUS, and were very rare in CMML (35% vs. 15% vs. 3%, p<0.001), with mVAF of DNMT3AMT increasing across this spectrum (CHIP: 6.5% vs. CCUS: 17.1% vs. CMML: 43.4%, p<0.0001). While DNMT3A missense MTs were most common (n=62, 67.4%), the AML-associated R882 hotspot MT was seen in 26 (28%) pts (CHIP: n=3, 5%, CCUS: n=10, 16%, and CMML n=13, 21%, Figure 1a). None of the DNMT3AMT CHIP and CCUS pts progressed to CMML.ASXL1MT were most frequently seen in CMML (n=178, 28.6%), followed by CHIP (n=4, 7.4%), and CCUS (n=17, 5%, p<0.001). The mVAF of ASXL1MT was significantly lower in CHIP, followed by CCUS, and CMML (11% vs. 34% vs. 36%, p<0.0001). Truncating ASXL1 MTs were most common (n=205, 53%). Mutational hotspots included G646W (n=81, CCUS: n=6, 3%, CMML: n=75, 37%) and E635 (n=27, CHIP: n=1, 0.5%, CCUS: n=1, 0.5%, CMML: n=27, 13%, Figure 1b). Four ASXL1MT CCUS pts transformed to CMML (R965, E635, G646W, Q910*, and Q925*); of which 2 co-mutated with TET2MT, one with SRSF2MT, and one with an additional ASXL1MT.TET2MT were frequently encountered in CMML, followed by CCUS and CHIP pts (CMML: n=205, 33% vs. CCUS: n=88, 26.3% vs. CHIP: n=15, 27.8%, p=0.02). The mVAF of TET2MT progressively increased across the 3 groups (CHIP: 14.1%, CCUS: 31.9%, CMML: 45.5%, p<0.001). TET2MT occurred across the span of the gene, with no clear hotspots identified, with nonsense MT being most frequent (n=150, 37.3%, Figure 1c). Among the nonsense and frameshift TET2MT (n=209), 131 (63%) involved the N terminal region, and 78 (37%) involved the catalytic domain. Among 8 CCUS pts that transformed to CMML, 6 had TET2MT, including 4 with spliceosome co-MT. Conclusion: While CMML, a disease of aging, arises in the background of CH, the most common CH MT, DNMT3AMT, plays a minor role in this process, and in fact, DNMT3AMT tend to occur at younger ages. While DNMT3A MT and ASXL1MT are preferentially observed in hotspots, TET2MT span the entire gene. Clonal compositions largely involving truncating TET2MT and frameshift ASXL1MT, in conjunction with splicing MT, shape the CMML genotype. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Komrokji: Geron: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Acceleron: Honoraria. Zeidan: Genentech: Consultancy; BeyondSpring: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; Geron: Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acceleron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Travel support, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy; Aprea: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Pfizer: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ionis: Consultancy; Jasper: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; BioCryst: Other: Clinical Trial Committees. Coombs: LOXO: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria. Madanat: Blue Print Pharmaceutical: Honoraria; Stem line pharmaceutical: Honoraria; Onc Live: Honoraria; Geron Pharmaceutical: Consultancy. Griffiths: Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Taiho Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apellis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lai: Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Macrogenics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Savona: CTI: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Geron: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NOVARTIS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taiho: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ALX Oncology: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Litzow: AbbVie: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Other: Research support to institution. Patnaik: StemLine: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a well-described entity and known to carry a worse prognosis, compared to de novo AML. In the current study, we sought to describe the presenting features and outcome of patients with AML, in the setting of previous history of cancer with or without exposure to chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Methods: A Mayo Clinic database of patients with AML was queried to identify patients with a previous history of cancer, both hematologic and solid tumors. A comparative analysis of presenting features, treatment details and survival were performed between patients with therapy-related AML (Group A) and those with AML and a history of cancer that had been managed with surgery alone (Group B). Results: A total of 250 patients (median age 68 years, range 19-90; 60% males) with AML and a previous history of cancer (both hematologic and solid) were identified; 182 (73%) cases were determined to be therapy-related AML (Group A) while the remaining 68 (27%) did not receive chemotherapy or radiotherapy for their antecedent cancer (Group B) (Table). Among group A patients 106 (58%) were exposed to chemotherapy, 37 (20%) to radiotherapy and 39 (22%) to combination chemotherapy and radiotherapy for their cancer. At the time of AML diagnosis, adverse karyotype was noted in 91 (51%) group A and 12 (19%) group B patients (p<0.0001); the incidence of adverse karyotype in patients exposed to chemotherapy vs radiotherapy alone vs combined chemoradiotherapy was 54% (57/106), 30% (11/37), and 59% (23/39) respectively (p=0.04). Group A patients, compared to those in group B, included more females (46% vs 24%; p=0.001), and more preceding hematologic malignancies (p=<0.0001). Next generation sequencing was performed in 74 patients and the results showed no significant difference between groups A and B (Table). Treatment and outcome in Groups A and B: Intensive and less intensive AML-directed chemotherapy were given to 100 (55%) and 44 (24%) patients in group A and 38 (56%) and 14 (21%) patients in group B (P=0.8). 79 (65%) remissions (complete remission (CR) 42 (29%) and CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) 37 (26%) were documented in Group A and 37 (71%) remissions (CR: 21 (40%) and CRi=16 (31%) in Group B (P=0.2). After a median follow-up of 8.4 months (range: 0.9-217), 184 deaths were documented: 132 (72.5%) in Group A and 52 (76.5%) in Group B (P=0.5). 52 (36%) patients from Group A and 25 (48%) from Group B relapsed (P=0.1). The median (range) overall survival (OS) rates of patients from Group A was 13 (9-17) months and that of Group B was 14 (10-35) months (P=0.6). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates were 52%, 28%, and 24% in Group A; and 62%, 33%, and 24% in Group B patients (Fig 1). Multivariable analysis identified relapse (HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.7-4.7) and failure to achieve CR/CRi (HR 2.8 95% CI 1.9-4.7) as risk factors for inferior survival (Fig 2a and 2b). The median (range) relapse free survival of patients in Group A was 28 (17 -81) and that of Group B was 27 (14 - 76) months (P=0.9) (Fig 2c). 28 patients underwent allogenic stem-cell transplant (25 in CR1 and 3 in CR2), 23 in Group A and 5 in Group B; the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS of patients who underwent allogenic stem cell transplant were 88%, 72%, and 72% regardless of the group (Fig 2d). Conclusion: The current study did not find significant differences between AML patients with previous history of cancer with or without exposure to chemo/radiotherapy, in terms of either response to AML-directed therapy or overall or relapse-free survival, despite a higher prevalence of adverse karyotype in therapy-related AML. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Patnaik: Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Stemline Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Al-Kali: Astex: Other: Research support to institution; Novartis: Research Funding. Litzow: Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee.

Abstract Background: The DEAD-box helicase 41 (DDX41), an RNA helicase, have been described as a component of the RNA spliceosome (Cheah et al. International Journal of Hematology 2017). Although DDX41 mutations predispose to late-onset higher grade myeloid neoplasms (MN), these patients may have a trend toward favorable prognosis and outcomes. In this work, we describe the clinical characteristics and survival outcomes of isolated and co-mutated DDX41 patients (pts). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 4,524 consecutive pts who underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS) (OncoHeme 42 genes panel, Mayo Clinic) testing and included 32 pts harboring pathogenic DDX41 mutation and one pt with proven DDX41 germline variant of unknown significance (VUS). Chart review of DDX41-mutated (m) cases between 2009 and 2021 was conducted after IRB approval. We compared overall survival (OS) of unmatched 27 t(8;21)AML and 40 inv(16) AML pts with 10 m DDX41-AML pts. JMP® Pro 14.1.0 Software was used for statistical analysis. Results: DDX41 mutations characteristics: Our cohort included 19 (58%) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), 10 (30%) acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), 2 (6%) myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), one clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) (3%) and one (3%) germline carrier. Germline testing was carried out in 10 pts, 9 of whom (90%) were confirmed to be germline). The start-loss variant (p.M1I) was the most common mutation type (N=10, 31%). Other types were frameshift (N=9, 28%), missense mutation (N=8, 25%), nonsense (N=3, 9%), and splice site mutation (N=2, 2%). Twenty-one (65.6%) DDX41 mutations clustered in the N-terminus (NT), 7 (22%) in the helicase-C domain (HCD), and 4 (12.5%) in the DEAD-box domain. Compared to NT mutations, patients with HCD mutation had no family history of solid tumors and were more likely to have an accompanying additional DDX41-VUS (0% vs 70%; p=.001) and (N=6, 86% vs. N=2,10%; p=.0001); respectively. I solated vs. co-mutated DDX41: Twenty (60%) pts were isolated-DDX41 and 13 (40%) were co-mutated. The median DDX41-VAF was 48% vs. 45% (p= .2) in the isolated compared to the co-mutated cases, respectively. The median number of co-mutations in the 13 co-mutated cases was 1 (range,1-3) with DNMT3A (38%), ASXL1 (30%), JAK2 (N=3, 23%), and EZH2 (N=2, 15%) were the most common co-mutations detected. Isolated DDX41 had more males (85% vs. 54%, p=.05), the p.M1I variant (47% vs. 8%, p=.02), normal cytogenetics (100% vs. 91%, p= .02), and less family history of solid tumors (77% vs. 33%, p= .02) compared to their co-mutated counterparts. However, there was no difference in OS (p=.99). Comparison of clinical characteristics and hematological features of isolated and co-mutated DDX41 pts are reported in (Table 1). Treatment and survival outcomes in DDX41-MDS/AML : Twenty-three (80%) patients were treated, MDS pts received hypomethylating agents (HMA) (N=10, 71%), HMA plus Venetoclax (HMA+VEN) (N=1, 7%), erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (N=2, 14%) and lenalidomide (N=1 ,7%). AML pts were treated with induction chemotherapy (N=6, 67%) and HMA+VEN (N=3, 33%). Overall response rate of MDS/AML patients was 77% and 100% of AML pts achieved complete remission (CR) when treated with induction chemotherapy or HMA+VEN regimen. There was no significant difference in OS between responders vs. non-responders 2-yr-OS (90% vs. 50%; p=.38) and treated vs. untreated 2-yr-OS (83% vs. 100%; p=.52). Comparing m DDX41-AML vs. core binding factor-AML: After a median follow-up of 33.3 months, all m DDX41-AML patients were alive. There was a significantly better OS in mDDX41-AML patients compared to pts with t(8;21) AML with 2-yr-OS (100% vs. 51%; p=.024) and a trend of better survival when compared to inv(16) AML 2-yr-OS (100% vs. 84%; p=.2). Conclusion We describe the characteristics and outcomes of m DDX41 patients. We demonstrated that isolated and co-mutated m DDX41 patients have different features. Isolated DDX41 patients had male predominance, more p.M1I variant, normal cytogenetics and less family history of solid tumors. In this study we found that m DDX41 AML has high response to treatment and has comparable (if not possibly better) OS compared to other "favorable risk" AML. This study, although limited by the small number of patients, supports the universal testing for DDX41 mutation in adults with MN diagnosis. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Al-Kali: Astex: Other: Research support to institution; Novartis: Research Funding. Foran: abbvie: Research Funding; OncLive: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; trillium: Research Funding; pfizer: Honoraria; takeda: Research Funding; revolution medicine: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; gamida: Honoraria; actinium: Research Funding; aptose: Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Salama: Mayo Clinic: Current Employment, Other: Mayo Clinic had the contractual work for the central pathology review for this study and I was one of the reviewing pathologists; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Litzow: Astellas: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee; Amgen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board. Patnaik: Stemline Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction: Mutations involving isocitrate dehydrogenase 1/2 (IDH) are known oncogenic drivers in hematological malignancies, conferring neomorphic enzymatic activity to IDH 1/2, resulting in the oncometabolite, 2-hydroxyglutarae (2-HG). 2-HG in turn suppresses TET activity, making IDH and TET2 mutations synthetically lethal and almost mutually exclusive. The frequency of IDH mutations in CMML is <10% and their prognostic impact remains unclear. We carried out this study in a large database of molecularly annotated CMML patients to better define the clinical profile and prognostic impact of these mutations. Methods: After IRB approval, CMML patients from the Mayo Clinic, Minnesota and the Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC), Tampa, Florida, were included in the study. All patients had bone marrow (BM) biopsies with cytogenetics and molecular genetics done either at diagnosis, or at first referral. Clinical and mutational data were abstracted and retrospectively analyzed. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from date of CMML diagnosis to date of death/last follow, while AML-free survival (AML-FS) was calculated from date of CMML diagnosis to date of leukemic transformation (LT). Patients that had undergone allogeneic HCT were excluded from the study (n=3). Statistical analysis was carried out using the Blue Sky software. Results: Six hundred and forty four patients were included in the study (Mayo Clinic-357, MCC- 287), median age 71 years (range, 20-95 years), 67.8% being male. Forty-three (6.7%) patients had IDH mutations, 35 (82%) IDH2 and 8 (18%) IDH1; of which, 34 (97%) involved the IDH2R140 hotspot and 5 (62.5%) involved the IDH1R132 hotspot, respectively. The median variant allele fractions (VAF) for IDH1 mutations was 41% (range, 8-46%) and for IDH2 mutations was 46% (range, 7-70%). There were no significant demographic or clinical differences between IDH mutant and wild type CMML patients, with the exception that IDH mutant CMML patients were less likely to be thrombocytopenic (p=0.006), were less likely to have TET2 co-mutations (14% vs 53.2%; p<0.001) and were more likely to have SRSF2 co-mutations (69.8% VS 40.3%; p<0.001). Importantly there were no differences in proliferative or dysplastic subtypes (p=0.3), cytogenetic (p=0.12) and molecular risk stratifications (p=045). There were also no significant demographic or clinical differences between IDH1 vs IDH2 mutant CMML patients. Six (14%) IDH mutant CMML patients had TET2 co-mutations; 5 (83%) with IDH2R140Q (median VAF-28%;all male) and 1 (17%) with IDH1R132H (VAF-44%;female) (Figure 1). Five (11%) IDH2 mutant patients were treated with enasidenib (IDH2 inhibitor), none with a durable response, while none of the IDH1 mutant patients received targeted therapy. At last follow up (median 18 months), 337 (52%) deaths and 119 (18.5%) LT have been documented, with IDH mutant patients having a higher LT rate (30.2% vs 17.6%, p=0.04) compared to wildtype patients. The median OS of the entire cohort was 35 months, with no difference in OS between IDH mutant and wild type patients (34.5 vs 35 months, p=0.12), with IDH1 mutant patients having a shorter OS in comparison to IDH2 mutant patients (31 vs 37 months; p=0.005- Figure 1). IDH mutant CMML patients also had a shorter AML-FS in comparison to wild type patients (36.6 vs 210 months, p=0.005), with there being no differential impact on AML-FS of IDH1 vs IDH2 mutations (p=0.26, Figure 1). Conclusions: IDH mutations are infrequent in CMML (7%), with IDH2 mutations being more common than IDH1 mutations (80 vs 20%). IDH mutations co-occur very infrequently with TET2 mutations (14%), with IDH mutant patients being less likely to have thrombocytopenia and more likely to have SRSF2 co-mutations. IDH mutations negatively impacting AML-FS without a significant impact on OS. Prospective clinical trials testing the safety and efficacy of IDH1/2 inhibitors in CMML are much needed. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Komrokji: AbbVie: Consultancy; PharmaEssentia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taiho Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Acceleron: Consultancy; BMSCelgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Consultancy. Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Other: Research support to institution. Padron: BMS: Research Funding; Stemline: Honoraria; Taiho: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Blueprint: Honoraria. Patnaik: StemLine: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) is a risk factor for development of myeloid neoplasms (MN) such as myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Therapy-related myeloid neoplasm (t-MN) is defined as the development of a MN in the context of prior DNA damaging therapies including chemotherapy, radiation, and immunosuppressive therapies. CCUS diagnosed in the setting of prior DNA damaging therapy (t-CCUS) and its outcomes are not known. The aim of this study was to study clinicopathological features and outcome of t-CCUS and compare it with t-MN. Methods Patients who had received DNA-damaging therapy and subsequently determined to have CCUS or t-MN were identified. The diagnosis of CCUS was made if the patient had non-diagnostic bone marrow biopsy evaluation combined with evidence of pathogenic myeloid somatic genetic alterations using conventional cytogenetics or next generation sequencing (NGS) panel. Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV) were stratified by DTA (DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1) genes vs. others. Event-free survival (EFS) was calculated using interval from t-CCUS to t-MN with death as a competing risk. Overall survival (OS) for t-CCUS and t-MN patients was calculated using interval from t-CCUS or t-MN diagnoses respectively to the last follow up. Statistical analysis was performed using JMP (v14.1, SAS Institute). Results We identified 30 patients with t-CCUS and 259 patients with t-MN. Eleven (37%) t-CCUS patients developed t-MN and were included in both cohorts (Fig. A). Clinical characteristics of t-CCUS patients are shown in Table 1. Briefly, age (median, interquartile range or IQR) at the diagnosis of primary malignancy and t-CCUS was not different between those who developed t-MN and those did not (P=0.09 and 0.378 respectively). There was no difference in hemoglobin, white blood cells, or ANC between the two groups. Patients who developed t-MN had a significantly lower platelet count (68 vs. 130, P<0.01) and higher bone marrow blast percent (2 vs. 0, P=0.04) compared to those who did not. At t-CCUS diagnosis, cytogenetics was abnormal in 11 (37%) patients and none had complex karyotype (CK). Paired cytogenetic analysis at t-CCUS and t-MN was available for 10 patients: 4 had unchanged karyotype at t-MN, whereas 6 had cytogenetic evolution. In contrast, 213 (83%) of 256 t-MN patients with available cytogenetics had abnormalities and 126/256 (49%) had CK. Thus, a significantly higher proportion of patients had CK t-MN compared to t-CCUS (χ 2 26.4, P<0.01). A 42-gene NGS panel identified 36 PV in 21 patients (median 1, range 1-4) at t-CCUS. The most common PV were in TET2 (37.1%), TP53 (11.4%), DNMT3A (8.6%), and ZRSR2 (8.6%) genes. Two patients had paired NGS available at t-CCUS and t-MN: one had BCOR and U2AF1 PV at t-CCUS and acquired an additional NRAS PV at t-MN. The second patient had 2 PV in TP53 at t-CCUS diagnosis, that remained the only PV identified at t-MN. In the t-MN cohort, median number of PV was 2 (range 1-9). The most common PV identified were TP53 (21.5%), TET2 (6.7%), DNMT3A (6.4%), and ASXL1 (6.4%), whereas 4.8% patients had no PV. Three of 22 patients in the t-CCUS cohort had TP53mut, compared to 55 of 157 in the t-MN cohort (χ 2 4, P=0.05). Management strategies for t-CCUS included observation (20), growth factors (4), treatment of primary malignancy (2), immunosuppressives (1), hypomethylating agent followed by allogeneic SCT (1), and others (2). Following t-CCUS, 9 patients progressed to MDS and 2 to AML with a median of 3.5 months (IQR 1.7-43.4). EFS was 43.4 months (IQR 6.8-80.9). The presence of abnormal cytogenetics (Fig. B) and the absence of DTA-mutations (Fig. C) predicted shorter EFS. At last follow up, 12 (40%) deaths were noted. Four (33%) patients died without developing t-MN. Causes of death in the t-CCUS cohort were: t-MN (3), primary malignancy (1), progressive cytopenia without MN (1), infection (1), graft-vs.-host-disease (1), and undetermined (5). t-MN patients had a significantly shorter survival compared to t-CCUS (Fig. D). Conclusion More than 10% of t-MN patients had a precursor t-CCUS. On the other hand, t-CCUS patients are at a high risk of progression to MN. t-MN is characterized by the acquisition of TP53mut, genomic instability, and a significantly shorter survival compared to t-CCUS. The presence of abnormal cytogenetics and the absence of DTA mutations at t-CCUS predict shorter EFS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Litzow: Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Patnaik: Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Stemline Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Other: Research support to institution.