Citations

BACKGROUND: Recently proposed World Health Organization (WHO, 5 th edition) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) recognized myeloid neoplasms (MN) harboring TP53-mutated ( TP53mut) as a separate entity. However, there are critical differences between the two classifications regarding allelic-status, variance allele frequency (VAF) cut-off and blast categories, that may lead to under- or overestimation of the risk. METHODS: We analyzed MN harboring TP53mut (VAF ≥2%, n=536) managed at Mayo Clinic (USA) and South Australia Health Network (Australia). ICC (Arber et al, Blood 2022) and WHO (Bluebook, Beta v2) definitions were used to stratify MN harboring TP53mut. RESULTS: Of 536 cases, 379 (71%) had myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) (<20% blasts) and 157 (29%) had acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Using WHO, 160 (42%) of 379 were classified as MDS-bi TP53 as they harbored 2 TP53mut (n=115; 30%) or 1 TP53mut plus confirmed loss of heterozygosity (LOH) or copy neutral LOH (cnLOH) of TP53 locus (n=45; 12%). Sixty-two (16%) TP53mut MDS with VAF >49% were classified as presumptive MDS-bi TP53. Of the 157 cases with 1 TP53mut VAF ≤49%, 17 confirmed to have an intact wild-type TP53 copy and were classified as monoallelic. While 140 (89%) cases did not have copy number variation (CNV) analysis. We next evaluated the number of TP53mut cases classified differently by WHO and ICC. As WHO does not recognize TP53mut AML as a separate entity, 157 (29%) TP53mut AML were not classifiable. 46% (174/379) of the TP53mut MDS including 48 (30%), 12 (19%) and 79 (65%) of bi TP53, presumptive bi TP53 and monoallelic TP53mut MDS according to WHO were classified differently by ICC ( Figure 1A). Discordance between the two classifications were predominantly driven by: (i) The difference in VAF cut-off. Sixty patients (11%) with TP53mut VAF <10% were excluded from the ICC classification of TP53mut MN as it mandates TP53mut VAF cut-off ≥10%. 11 (18%) and 41 (68%) of these had bi TP53, monoallelic TP53mut MDS by WHO criteria while 8 (13%) had AML. Importantly, within the VAF <10% cohort, median overall survival (OS) of 2 TP53mut or 1 TP53mut with 17p13.1 (hereafter 17p) deletion or complex karyotype (CK, n=30) was significantly poor compared to 1 TP53mut VAF <10% (11.6 vs 32.4 months; P =0.002, Figure 1B), suggesting that ICC may underestimate the poor prognosis of multi-hit or multi-hit equivalent TP53mut MN with VAF <10%. (ii) The difference in bone marrow blast cut-off. The underlying assumption by WHO is that prognosis of bi TP53mut MDS is poor irrespective of blast percentage category (0-9% vs 10-19%). In contrast, ICC considers that TP53mut MDS/AML (blasts 10-19%) is associated with poor prognosis irrespective of TP53 allelic status. Median OS of TP53mut MDS with 10-19% blasts was significantly poor compared to blast 0-9% (6.4 vs 11.6 months, P <0.0001). Second, median OS of bi TP53mut was significantly poor than monoallelic TP53mut in MDS- blast 0-9% (10.1 vs 15.9 months; P =0.0001) but not in blasts 10-19% (6.8 vs 6.2 months; P =0.19). Hence, exclusion of monoallelic TP53mut MDS with blast 10-19% as TP53mut MN from the WHO classification may underestimate the poor prognosis. (iii) The difference in the definition of biallelic and multi-hit TP53 loss. 35 cases with 1 TP53mut VAF ≤49%, had 17p deletion but did not have CNV analysis to confirm the loss of TP53 locus and could not be classified further using WHO. ICC classified 18 (50%) of these cases as multi-hit. Median OS of 1 TP53mut VAF ≤49%, and 17p deletion on karyotype was significantly poor than 1 TP53mut (VAF ≤49%without 17p deletion on karyotype (6.4 vs 14.6 months, P =0.001). (iv) The difference in the definition of multi-hit equivalent. 32% (33/104) WHO defined monoallelic cases without available CNV data, were classified as multi-hit-equivalent by ICC as they harbored CK. However, WHO does not consider CK as presumptive evidence of bi TP53. Median OS of 1 TP53mut VAF ≤49% with CK was significantly poor compared to 1 TP53mut without CK (8.2 vs 26.9 months, P =0.0008). CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence that poor prognosis of ‘multi-hit’ TP53 with VAF <10% is underestimated by ICC. On the other hand, poor prognosis of monoallelic TP53 MDS with 10-19% blasts as well as 1 TP53mut VAF ≤49% in the presence of CK is underestimated by WHO. These data suggest that both classifications can be further refined.

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 examined the individual prognostic contribution of absolute neutrophil (ANC), lymphocyte (ALC), and monocyte (AMC) counts, on overall (OS), leukemia‐free (LFS), and myelofibrosis‐free (MFFS) survival in essential thrombocythemia (ET). Informative cases ( N = 598; median age 59 years; females 62%) were retrospectively accrued from a Mayo Clinic database: JAK2 59%, CALR 27%, triple‐negative 11%, and MPL 3%; international prognostic scoring system for ET (IPSET) risk high 21%, intermediate 42%, and low 37%; 7% (37/515) had abnormal karyotype and 10% (21/205) adverse mutations ( SF3B1/SRSF2/U2AF1/TP53 ). At median 8.4 years, 163 (27%) deaths, 71 (12%) fibrotic, and 20 (3%) leukemic transformations were recorded. Multivariable analysis resulted in HR (95% CI) of 16.5 (9.9–27.4) for age > 70 years, 3.7 (2.3–6.0) for age 50–70 years, 2.4 (1.7–3.3) for ANC ≥8 × 10 9 /L, and 1.9 (1.4–2.6) for ALC <1.7 × 10 9 /L. The corresponding HR‐based scores were 4, 2, 1, and 1, resulting in an new 4‐tiered AgeAncAlc (AAA; triple A) risk model: high (5–6 points; median survival 8 years; HR 30.1, 95% CI 17.6–54), intermediate‐2 (4 points; median 13.5 years; HR 12.7, 95% CI 7.1–23.0), intermediate‐1 (2–3 points; median 20.7 years; HR 3.8, 95% CI 2.3–6.4) and low (0–1 points; median 47 years). The AAA model (Akaike Information Criterion [AIC] 621) performed better than IPSET (AIC 647) and was subsequently validated by an external University of Florence ET cohort ( N = 485). None of the AAA variables predicted LFS while ALC <1.7 × 10 9 /L was associated with inferior MFFS ( p = .01). Adverse mutations ( p < .01) and karyotype ( p < .01) displayed additional prognostic value without disqualifying the prognostic integrity of the AAA model. This study proposes a simple and globally applicable survival model for ET, which can be used as a platform for further molecular refinement. This study also suggests a potential role for immune‐related biomarkers, as a prognostic tool in myeloproliferative neoplasms.