Search

The WHO and International Consensus Classification 2022 classifications of myelodysplastic syndromes enhance diagnostic precision and refine decision-making processes in these diseases. However, some discrepancies still exist and potentially cause inconsistency in their adoption in a clinical setting. We adopted a data-driven approach to provide a harmonisation between these two classification systems. We investigated the importance of genomic features and their effect on the cluster assignment process to define harmonised entity labels. A panel of expert haematologists, haematopathologists, and data scientists who are members of the International Consortium for Myelodysplastic Syndromes was formed and a modified Delphi consensus process was adopted to harmonise morphologically defined categories without a distinct genomic profile. The panel held regular online meetings and participated in a two-round survey using an online voting tool. We identified nine clusters with distinct genomic features. The cluster of highest hierarchical importance was characterised by biallelic TP53 inactivation. Cluster assignment was irrespective of blast count. Individuals with monoallelic TP53 inactivation were assigned to other clusters. Hierarchically, the second most important group included myelodysplastic syndromes with del(5q). Isolated del(5q) and less than 5% of blast cells in the bone marrow were the most relevant label-defining features. The third most important cluster included myelodysplastic syndromes with mutated SF3B1. The absence of isolated del(5q), del(7q)/-7, abn3q26.2, complex karyotype, RUNX1 mutations, or biallelic TP53 were the basis for a harmonised label of this category. Morphologically defined myelodysplastic syndrome entities showed large genomic heterogeneity that was not efficiently captured by single-lineage versus multilineage dysplasia, marrow blasts, hypocellularity, or fibrosis. We investigated the biological continuum between myelodysplastic syndromes with more than 10% bone marrow blasts and acute myeloid leukaemia, and found only a partial overlap in genetic features. After the survey, myelodysplastic syndromes with low blasts (ie, less than 5%) and myelodysplastic syndromes with increased blasts (ie, 5% or more) were recognised as disease entities. Our data-driven approach can efficiently harmonise current classifications of myelodysplastic syndromes and provide a reference for patient management in a real-world setting., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests UG reports speaker honoraria from Novartis, AbbVie, and BMS; and institutional research support from BMS, AbbVie, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. FE reports consultancy or advisory roles for AbbVie, Incyte, Syros, Novartis, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. SH reports research support from STORM Therapeutics and AstraZeneca. EAG reports honoraria from AAMDS, MedscapeLIVE!, MediCom Worldwide, MJH Life Sciences, ASH, MDS International Foundation, and Physicians’ Education Resource; consulting fees from AbbVie, Alexion, Apellis, Takeda Oncology, Astex/Taiho Oncology, Alexion/AstraZeneca Rare Disease, Celgene/BMS, CTI BioPharma, Novartis, Partner Therapeutics, Picnic Health, and Servier; and research funding from Alexion, Apellis, Astex /Otsuka/Taiho Oncology, Blueprint Medicines, Celldex Therapeutics, Genentech, and NextCure. MAS reports participation on advisory boards for BMS, Kurome, Schrödinger, and Karyopharm. MD-C reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for BMS, Novartis, Blueprint Medicines, GSK, Agios, Hemavan, Syros, Keros, Curis, and Astex/Otsuka; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events for BMS, Novartis, and Keros. UP reports research support and honoraria from BMS, Geron, Curis, AbbVie, and Janssen. RBe reports employment or equity from Aptose Biosciences; participation on advisory boards for BMS, Servier, NeoGenomics, and Geron; being Data Monitoring Committee Chair for Gilead, Ipsen, and Keros; and consultancy for TenSixteen. YM reports honoraria from Nippon Shinyaku, BMS, Novartis, Sumitomo Pharma, Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer, Eisai, and Otsuka; and research funding from Chugai. AED reports participation on advisory boards, consultancy, or honoraria from Celgene/BMS, Agios, Novartis, Astellas, and Gilead; and participation on clinical trial committees or data safety monitoring boards for Novartis, AbbVie, Kura, Geron, Servier, Keros, and Celgene/BMS. DPS reports employment by Ajax Therapeutics; former employment by Novartis; and minor equity in Arrowhead and Bluebird. TKK reports consultancy for Agenus and ImmunoBiome. AK reports research support from Novartis and BMS; consulting fees from Alexion, Novartis, Amgen, Agios, Pfizer, Samsung, Celgene, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Sobi; honoraria from Alexion, Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Samsung, Celgene, F Hoffmann-La Roche, BMS, Sobi, and Silence Therapeutics; and speakers fees from Alexion, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Celgene, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Sobi. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Introduction: Myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) are a heterogeneous group of hematologic malignancies that are stratified into high-risk (HR-MDS) and low-risk (LR-MDS) categories. Until recently LR-MDS has been typically managed by supportive measures and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs); whereas, management of HR-MDS, typically included hypomethylating agents and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. However, the limited rates and duration of response observed with these interventions prompted the search for targeted therapies to improve the outcomes among patients with MDS., Areas Covered: Here we review the current landscape of targeted therapies in MDS. These include pyruvate kinase and hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) activators; TGF-beta, telomerase, BCL2 and isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors; as well as novel approaches targeting inflammation, pyroptosis, immune evasion and RNA splicing machinery., Expert Opinion: This review highlights the progress and challenges in MDS treatment. Despite some promising results, many therapies remain in early development or have faced setbacks, emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the disease's pathobiology. Continued research into targeted therapies, homogenous clinical trial designs, as well as increased incorporation of molecular prognostic tools and artificial intelligence into trial design are essential for developing effective treatments for MDS and improving patient outcomes.

Abstract: Although intensive induction chemotherapy (IC) remains the standard of care for younger patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), hypomethylating agents + venetoclax (HMA/VEN) can lead to durable remission among older patients with nucleophosmin 1 (NPM1) mutations. Whether IC or HMA/VEN is superior in patients aged ≥60 years with NPM1-mutant AML is unknown. We performed an international, multicenter retrospective cohort study of 221 patients (147 IC and 74 HMA/VEN) with previously untreated NPM1-mutant AML. Composite complete remission (cCR) (defined as CR + CR with incomplete count recovery) rate was similar for IC and HMA/VEN (cCR, 85% vs 74%; P = .067). Although overall survival (OS) was favorable with IC in unselected patients compared with HMA/VEN (24-month OS, 59% [95% confidence interval (CI), 52-69%] vs 38% [95% CI, 27-55%]; P = .013), it was not statistically different among patients aged 60-75 years (60% [95% CI, 52-70%] vs 44% [95% CI, 29-66%]; P = .069) and patients who received an allogeneic stem cell transplant (70% [95% CI, 58-85%] vs 66% [95% CI, 44-100%]; P = .56). Subgroup analyses suggested that patients with normal cytogenetics (24-month OS, 65% [95% CI, 56-74%] with IC vs 40% [95% CI, 26-60%] with HMA/VEN; P = .009) and without FLT3 internal tandem duplication mutations might benefit from IC compared with HMA/VEN (24-month OS, 68% [95% CI, 59-79%] vs 43% [95% CI, 29-63%]; P = .008). In multivariable analysis, OS was not statistically different between patients treated with IC and HMA/VEN (hazard ratio for death with HMA/VEN vs IC, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.40-1.27; P = .25)., (© 2024 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Myelodysplastic neoplasms/syndromes (MDS) are a heterogeneous group of biologically distinct entities characterized by variable degrees of ineffective hematopoiesis. Recently, two classification systems (the 5th edition of the WHO Classification and the International Consensus Classification) further sub-characterized MDS into morphologic and genetically defined groups. Accurate diagnosis and subclassification of MDS require a multistep systemic approach. The International Consortium for MDS (icMDS) summarizes a contemporary, practical, and multimodal approach to MDS diagnosis and classification., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) constitute a heterogeneous group of clonal hematopoietic disorders with extremely variable clinical features and outcomes. Management of MDS is largely based on risk stratification of patients into either lower-risk or higher-risk categories using the International Prognostic Scoring System-Revised and, more recently, on the Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System. Lower-risk MDS is often managed with the goal of ameliorating cytopenias and improving quality of life, while higher-risk MDS is treated with therapies aimed at extending survival and delaying progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Therapeutic strategies in lower-risk MDS patients may consist of erythropoiesis stimulating agents, luspatercept, and lenalidomide for selected patients. Furthermore, imetelstat has recently been added to the FDA-approved therapeutic armamentarium for lower-risk MDS. In higher-risk MDS, monotherapy with hypomethylating agents continues to be the standard of care. While several novel hypomethylating agent combinations have and are being studied in large randomized phase 3 clinical trials, including the combination of azacitidine and venetoclax, no combination to date have improved overall survival to azacitidine monotherapy. Moreover, biomarker-directed therapies as well as immonotherapeutic approaches are currently being evaluated in early phase trials. Despite recent advancements, the lack of therapeutic agents, particularly after the failure of first line therapy in higher risk MDS, continues to be a major hurdle in the management of MDS. In this review, we discuss the current treatment landscape of MDS and provide an overview of novel agents currently in clinical development that have the potential to alter our current treatment paradigms., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest RMS had a consultancy with Bristol Myers Squibb, Curio Science, Gilead Sciences, Kura Oncology, Servier, and Rigel and served in Steering Committees for Servier. MS served on the advisory board for Novartis, Kymera, Sierra Oncology, GSK, Rigel, BMS, Sobi and Syndax; consulted for Boston Consulting and Dedham group and participated in CME activity for Novartis, Curis Oncology, Haymarket Media and Clinical care options. AMZ reports receiving grant support from AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, Amgen, Aprea, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cardiff Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Medimmune, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Takeda, and Trovagene; consulting fees from AbbVie, Acceleron, Agios, Amgen, Aprea, Astellas Pharma, BeyondSpring, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cardiff Oncology, Cardinal Health, Daiichi Sankyo, Epizyme, Geron, Gilead, Incyte, Ionis, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Kura, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Syndax, Taiho, Takeda, Trovagene, and Tyme; travel support from Cardiff Oncology, Novartis, and Pfizer; and serving on clinical trial committees of AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Geron, Gilead, Kura, and Novartis, (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The FLT3 inhibitor quizartinib has been shown to improve overall survival when added to intensive induction chemotherapy ("7 + 3") in patients 18-75 years old with newly diagnosed AML harboring a FLT3- ITD mutation. However, the health economic implications of this approval are unknown. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of quizartinib using a partitioned survival analysis model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. In the base case scenario, the addition of quizartinib to 7 + 3 resulted in incremental costs of $289,932 compared with 7 + 3 alone. With an incremental gain of 0.84 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with quizartinib + 7 + 3 induction vs. 7 + 3 alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the addition of quizartinib to standard 7 + 3 was $344,039/QALY. Only an 87% reduction in the average wholesale price of quizartinib or omitting quizartinib continuation therapy after completion of consolidation therapy and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant would make quizartinib a cost-effective option.

Clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) represents a distinct disease entity characterized by myeloid-related somatic mutations with a variant allele fraction of ≥2% in individuals with unexplained cytopenia(s) but without a myeloid neoplasm (MN). Notably, CCUS carries a risk of progressing to MN, particularly in cases featuring high-risk mutations. Understanding CCUS requires dedicated studies to elucidate its risk factors and natural history. Our analysis of 357 CCUS patients investigated the interplay between clonality, cytopenia, and prognosis. Multivariate analysis identified 3 key adverse prognostic factors: the presence of splicing mutation(s) (score = 2 points), platelet count <100×109/L (score = 2.5), and ≥2 mutations (score = 3). Variable scores were based on the coefficients from the Cox proportional hazards model. This led to the development of the Clonal Cytopenia Risk Score (CCRS), which stratified patients into low- (score <2.5 points), intermediate- (score 2.5-<5), and high-risk (score ≥5) groups. The CCRS effectively predicted 2-year cumulative incidence of MN for low- (6.4%), intermediate- (14.1%), and high- (37.2%) risk groups, respectively, by Gray's test (P <.0001). We further validated the CCRS by applying it to an independent CCUS cohort of 104 patients, demonstrating a c-index of 0.64 (P =.005) in stratifying the cumulative incidence of MN. Our study underscores the importance of integrating clinical and molecular data to assess the risk of CCUS progression, making the CCRS a valuable tool that is practical and easily calculable. These findings are clinically relevant, shaping the management strategies for CCUS and informing future clinical trial designs., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Hematology.)

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a complex hematological malignancy characterized by diverse genetic alterations, each with distinct clinical implications. Chromosome 3 inversion (inv(3)) is a rare genetic anomaly found in approximately 1.4-1.6% of AML cases, which profoundly affects prognosis. This review explores the pathophysiology of inv(3) AML, focusing on fusion genes like GATA2::EVI1 or GATA2::MECOM . These genetic rearrangements disrupt critical cellular processes and lead to leukemia development. Current treatment modalities, including intensive chemotherapy (IC), hypomethylating agents (HMAs) combined with venetoclax, and allogeneic stem cell transplantation are discussed, highlighting outcomes achieved and their limitations. The review also addresses subgroups of inv(3) AML, describing additional mutations and their impact on treatment response. The poor prognosis associated with inv(3) AML underscores the urgent need to develop more potent therapies for this AML subtype. This comprehensive overview aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of inv(3) AML and guide future research and treatment strategies.

Background: TP53 mutations are associated with an adverse prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). However, the integrated genetic, epigenetic, and immunologic landscape of TP53 -mutated AML/HR-MDS is not well defined., Objectives: To define the genetic, epigenetic, and immunologic landscape of TP53- mutant and TP53 wild-type AML and HR-MDS patients., Design: Post hoc analysis of TP53- mutant and TP53 wild-type patients treated on the randomized FUSION trial with azacitidine ± the anti-PD-L1 antibody durvalumab., Methods: We performed extensive molecular, epigenetic, and immunologic assays on a well-annotated clinical trial dataset of 61 patients with TP53- mutated disease (37 AML, 24 MDS) and 144 TP53 wild-type (89 AML, 55 MDS) patients, all of whom received azacitidine-based therapy. A 38 gene-targeted myeloid mutation analysis from screening bone marrow (BM) was performed. DNA methylation arrays, immunophenotyping and immune checkpoint expression by flow cytometry, and gene expression profiles by bulk RNA sequencing were assessed at baseline and serially during the trial., Results: Global DNA methylation from peripheral blood was independent of TP53 mutation and allelic status. AZA therapy led to a statistically significant decrease in global DNA methylation scores independent of TP53 mutation status. In BM from TP53- mutant patients, we found both a higher T-cell population and upregulation of inhibitory immune checkpoint proteins such as PD-L1 compared to TP53 wild-type. RNA sequencing analyses revealed higher expression of the myeloid immune checkpoint gene LILRB3 in TP53- mutant samples suggesting a novel therapeutic target., Conclusion: This integrated analysis of the genetic, epigenetic, and immunophenotypic landscape of TP53 mutant AML/HR-MDS suggests that differences in the immune landscape resulting in an immunosuppressive microenvironment rather than epigenetic differences contribute to the poor prognosis of TP53- mutant AML/HR-MDS with mono- or multihit TP53 mutation status., Trial Registration: FUSION trial (NCT02775903)., Competing Interests: AMZ received research funding (institutional) from Celgene/BMS, Abbvie, Astex, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cardiff oncology, Incyte, Takeda, Novartis, Aprea, and ADC Therapeutics. AMZ participated in advisory boards, and/or had a consultancy with and received honoraria from AbbVie, Otsuka, Pfizer, Celgene/BMS, Jazz, Incyte, Agios, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Acceleron, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Cardinal Health, Taiho, Seattle Genetics, BeyondSpring, Cardiff Oncology, Takeda, Ionis, Amgen, Janssen, Epizyme, Syndax, Gilead, Kura, Chiesi, ALX Oncology, BioCryst, Notable, Orum, and Tyme. AMZ served on clinical trial committees for Novartis, Abbvie, Gilead, BioCryst, Abbvie, ALX Oncology, Geron, and Celgene/BMS. RMS participated in advisory boards, and/or had a consultancy with and received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and Gilead Sciences, Inc.; divested equity interest in Curis Oncology. IB, ET, DLM, BF, VH, and SR are employees of Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company, and may be shareholders. SH has received research funding received honoraria from FORMA Therapeutics. TH is the owner of Munich Leukemia Laboratory. All other authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to declare., (© The Author(s), 2024.)

Purpose of Review: Myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) represent a diverse group of pathologically distinct diseases with varying prognoses and risks of leukemia progression. This review aims to discuss current treatment options for elderly patients with MDS, focusing on patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy or allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The challenges associated with treatment in this population and emerging therapeutic prospects are also explored., Recent Findings: Recent advancements in molecular diagnostics have enhanced risk stratification by incorporating genetic mutations, notably through the molecular International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-M). Lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS) treatment ranges from observation to supportive measures and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), with emerging therapies like luspatercept showing promise. High-risk MDS (HR-MDS) is treated with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) or allogenic HSCT, but outcomes remain poor. Elderly MDS patients, often diagnosed after 70, pose challenges in treatment decision-making. The IPSS-M aids risk stratification, guiding therapeutic choices. For LR-MDS, supportive care, ESAs, and novel agents like luspatercept are considered. Treatment of HR-MDS involves HMAs or allogenic HSCT. Emerging treatments, including oral HMAs and novel agents targeting FLT3, and IDH 1/2 mutations, show promise. Future research should refine treatment strategies for this elderly population focusing on quality-of-life improvement., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

While there is clear evidence to suggest poorer outcome associated with multi-hit (MH) TP53 mutation compared to single-hit (SH) in lower-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), data are conflicting in both higher-risk MDS and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We conducted an indepth analysis utilizing data from 10 US academic institutions to study differences in molecular characteristics and outcomes of SH (n= 139) versus MH (n= 243) TP53MTAML. Complex cytogenetics (CG) were more common in MH compared to SH TP53MT AML (p <0.001); whereas ASXL1 (p= <0.001), RAS (p<0.001), splicing factor (p= 0.003), IDH1/2 (p= 0.001), FLT3 ITD (p= <0.001) and NPM1 (p= 0.005) mutations significantly clustered with SH TP53MT AML. Survival after excluding patients who received best supportive care alone was dismal but not significantly different between SH and MH (event free survival [EFS]: 3.0 vs 2.20 months, p= 0.22/ overall survival [OS]: 8.50 vs 7.53 months, respectively, p= 0.13). In multivariable analysis, IDH1 mutation and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) as a time-dependent covariate were associated with superior EFS (HR; 0.44, 95% CI: 0.19-1.01, p= 0.05/ HR; 0.34, 95% CI: 0.18-0.62, p<0.001) and OS (HR; 0.24, 95% CI: 0.08-0.71, p= 0.01/ HR; 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16-0.47, p<0.001). While complex CG (HR; 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01-2.40, p= 0.04) retained unfavorable significance for OS. Our analysis suggests that unlike in MDS, multihit TP53MT is less relevant in independently predicting outcomes in patients with AML.

Notable treatment advances have been made in recent years for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS), and several new drugs are under development. For example, the emerging availability of oral MDS therapies holds the promise of improving patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Within this rapidly evolving landscape, the inclusion of HRQoL and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is critical to inform the benefit/risk assessment of new therapies or to assess whether patients live longer and better, for what will likely remain a largely incurable disease. We provide practical considerations to support investigators in generating high-quality PRO data in future MDS trials. We first describe several challenges that are to be thoughtfully considered when designing an MDS-focused clinical trial with a PRO endpoint. We then discuss aspects related to the design of the study, including PRO assessment strategies. We also discuss statistical approaches illustrating the potential value of time-to-event analyses and their implications within the estimand framework. Finally, based on a literature review of MDS randomized controlled trials with a PRO endpoint, we note the PRO items that deserve special attention when reporting future MDS trial results. We hope these practical considerations will facilitate the generation of rigorous PRO data that can robustly inform MDS patient care and support treatment decision-making for this patient population., Competing Interests: Fabio Efficace had consultancy or advisory role for AbbVie, Incyte, Syros, Novartis, and JAZZ Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Rena Buckstein: Research funding and honoraria for advisory boards and speaking engagements from BMS, TAIHO, and Abbvie. Gregory A. Abel has consulted for Novartis and Geron outside the submitted work. Pierre Fenaux received research funding from BMS, Abbvie, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Janssen; and had a consultancy with and received honoraria from BMS, Abbvie, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Novartis. Andrew M. Brunner received consulting or advisory board honoraria from Novartis, Acceleron, Agios, Abbvie, Takeda, Celgene/BMS, Keros Therapeutics, Taiho, Gilead; and has research support from the NIH SPORE in Myeloid Malignancies, and from the Edward P. Evans Foundation. Rafael Bejar owns equity in and is employed by Aptose Biosciences; he has served as an advisor to BMS, Servier, Gilead, and Ipsen; he is on the SAB for NeoGenomics. Amy E DeZern participated in advisory boards, and/or had a consultancy with and received honoraria from Celgene/BMS, Agios, Regenergon, Sobi, Novartis, Astellas, and Gilead. Amy E. DeZern served on clinical trial committees for Novartis, Abbvie, Kura, Geron, and Celgene/BMS. Gail J. Roboz: Consultancy: Abbvie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Ellipses Pharma, Genoptix, Geron, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Jasper Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Molecular Partners, Novartis, Pfizer, Oncoverity, OncoPrecision, Rigel, Roche, Syndax, Takeda (IRC Chair), Telix Pharma; and research support: Janssen. Michael R. Savona: Membership on a board or advisory committee: Bristol Myers Squibb, CTI, Forma, Geron, GSK, Karyopharm, Rigel Ryvu, Taiho, Takeda, Treadwell; patents and royalties: Boehringer Ingelheim, Empath Biosciences; research funding: ALX Oncology, Astex, Incyte, Takeda, TG Therapeutics; equity ownership: Empath Biosciences, Karyopharm, Ryvu; consultancy: Forma, Geron, Karyopharm, Ryvu. Rami Komrokji: Abbvie: Speaker Bureau, Advisory board; BMS: Research grant, Advisory board; DSI: Advisory board; Geron: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Jazz: Speaker Bureau, Advisory board; Pharma Essentia: Speaker Bureau, Advisory board; Rigel: Speaker Bureau, Advisory board; Servio: Speaker Bureau, Advisory board; Sobi: Speaker Bureau, Advisory board; Sumitomo Pharma: consultancy, Advisory board. David A. Sallman served on the advisory board or panel for Agios, Avencell, BlueBird Bio, BMS, Dark Blue, Jasper Therapeutics, Kite, Magenta Therapeutics, NKARTA, Novartis, Rigel Shattuck Labs, Servier, Syndax, Syros; and had a consultancy with AbbBie, Gilead, Molecular Partners AG, Takeda. Guillermo Sanz received honoraria, advisory board membership, or consultation fees from AbbVie, BMS, ExCellThera, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda and participated in sponsored speaker's bureau for BMS, Novartis, and Takeda. Hetty E. Carraway: Consultancy: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Rigel, Syndax, Servier; and research support: Celgene. Maximilian Stahl consulted for Curis Oncology and Boston Consulting; served on the advisory board for Novartis and Kymera, GSK, Rigel, and Sierra Oncology; and participated in GME activity for Novartis, Curis Oncology, Haymarket Media, and Clinical care options (CCO). Mikkael A. Sekeres has served on advisory boards for BMS, Novartis, Kurome, and Gilead. Amer M. Zeidan received research funding (institutional) from Celgene/BMS, Abbvie, Astex, Pfizer, Medimmune/Astra Zeneca, Boehringer‐Ingelheim, Cardiff oncology, Incyte, Takeda, Novartis, Aprea, and ADC Therapeutics. He participated in advisory boards, and/or had a consultancy with and received honoraria from AbbVie, Otsuka, Pfizer, Celgene/BMS, Jazz, Incyte, Agios, Boehringer‐Ingelheim, Novartis, Acceleron, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Cardinal Health, Taiho, Seattle Genetics, BeyondSpring, Cardiff Oncology, Takeda, Ionis, Amgen, Janssen, Epizyme, Syndax, Gilead, Kura, Chiesi, ALX Oncology, BioCryst, Notable, Orum, and Tyme. He served on clinical trial committees for Novartis, Abbvie, Gilead, BioCryst, Abbvie, ALX Oncology, Geron, and Celgene/BMS. Fabio Efficace, Rena Buckstein, and Gregory A. Abel report being involved in the development and validation of the QUALMS, one of the PROs discussed in this paper. The QUALMS is copyrighted by Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO). The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2024 The Authors. HemaSphere published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Hematology Association.)

Molecularly defined secondary acute myeloid leukemia is associated with a prior myeloid neoplasm and confers a worse prognosis. We compared outcomes of molecularly defined secondary AML patients (n = 395) treated with daunorubicin and cytarabine (7 + 3, n = 167), liposomal daunorubicin and cytarabine (CPX-351, n = 66) or hypomethylating agents (HMA) + venetoclax (VEN) (n = 162). Median overall survival (OS) was comparable between treatment groups among patients aged >60 years. In a multivariable model HMA + VEN vs. 7 + 3 was associated with better OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-0.98, p = 0.041]), whereas CPX-351 vs. 7 + 3 was not (HR 0.79 [CI 95% 0.50-1.25, p = 0.31]). Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, BCOR and IDH mutations were associated with improved OS; older age, prior myeloid disease, NRAS/KRAS mutations, EZH2 mutation, and monosomal karyotype were associated with worse OS. When analyzed in each treatment separately, the IDH co-mutations benefit was seen with 7 + 3 and the detrimental effect of NRAS/KRAS co-mutations with HMA + VEN and CPX-351. In pairwise comparisons adjusted for age, HMA + VEN was associated with improved OS vs. 7 + 3 in patients with SF3B1 mutation and improved OS vs. CPX-351 in those with RNA splicing factor mutations. In molecularly defined secondary AML treatment with HMA + VEN might be preferred but could further be guided by co-mutations., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Purpose: There is an overlap in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) characteristics of patients presenting with different etiologies of CSF pleocytosis. Here, we characterized patients with CSF pleocytosis treated in a large hospital., Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 1150 patients with an elevated CSF leukocyte count > 5 cells/µl treated at a university hospital in Germany from January 2015 to December 2017 was performed. Information on clinical presentation, laboratory parameters, diagnosis and outcome was collected. Clinical and laboratory features were tested for their potential to differentiate between bacterial meningitis (BM) and other causes of CSF pleocytosis., Results: The most common etiologies of CSF pleocytosis were CNS infections (34%: 20% with detected pathogen, 14% without), autoimmune (21%) and neoplastic diseases (16%). CSF cell count was higher in CNS infections with detected pathogen (median 82 cells/µl) compared to autoimmune (11 cells/µl, p = 0.001), neoplastic diseases (19 cells/µl, p = 0.01) and other causes (11 cells/µl, p < 0.001). The CHANCE score was developed to differentiate BM from other causes of CSF pleocytosis: Multivariate regression revealed that CSF cell count > 100 cells/µl, CSF protein > 100 mg/dl, CRP > 5 mg/dl, elevated white blood cell count, abnormal mental status and nuchal rigidity are important indicators. The CHANCE score identified patients with BM with high sensitivity (92.1%) and specificity (90.9%) (derivation cohort: AUC: 0.955, validation cohort: AUC: 0.956)., Conclusion: Overall, the most common causes for CSF pleocytosis include infectious, neoplastic or autoimmune CNS diseases in ~ 70% of patients. The CHANCE score could be of help to identify patients with high likelihood of BM and support clinical decision making., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with hypomethylating agent failure have a poor prognosis. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) can contribute to MDS progression and mediate resistance to anti-PD1 therapy. As histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) decrease MDSCs in preclinical models, we conducted an investigator-initiated, NCI-Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program-sponsored, multicenter, dose escalation, and expansion phase Ib trial (NCT02936752) of the HDACi entinostat and the anti-PD1 antibody pembrolizumab. Twenty-eight patients (25 MDS and 3 AML) were enrolled. During dose escalation (n=13 patients), there was one dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) on dose level (DL) 1 (G5 pneumonia/bronchoalveolar hemorrhage) and two DLTs at DL 2 (G3 pharyngeal mucositis and G3 anorexia). Per the 3 + 3 dose escalation design, DL 1 (entinostat 8 mg PO days 1 and 15 + pembrolizumab 200 mg IV day 1 every 21 days) was expanded and another 15 patients were enrolled. Hematologic adverse events (AEs) were common. The most common non-hematologic ≥G3 AEs were infection (32%), hypoxia/respiratory failure (11%), and dyspnea (11%). There were no protocol-defined responses among the 28 patients enrolled. Two patients achieved a marrow complete remission (mCR). Using a systems immunology approach with mass cytometry and machine learning analysis, mCR patients had increased classical monocytes and macrophages but there was no significant change of MDSCs. In conclusion, combining entinostat with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced MDS and AML was associated with limited clinical efficacy and substantial toxicity. Absence of an effect on MDSCs could be a potential explanation for the limited efficacy of this combination. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT02936752., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)