Aziz Nazha

An international data set for CMML validates prognostic scoring systems and demonstrates a need for novel prognostication strategies

Since its reclassification as a distinct disease entity, clinical research efforts have attempted to establish baseline characteristics and prognostic scoring systems for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). Although existing data for baseline characteristics and CMML prognostication have been robustly developed and externally validated, these results have been limited by the small size of single-institution cohorts. We developed an international CMML data set that included 1832 cases across eight centers to establish the frequency of key clinical characteristics. Of note, we found that the majority of CMML patients were classified as World Health Organization CMML-1 and that a 7.5% bone marrow blast cut-point may discriminate prognosis with higher resolution in comparison with the existing 10%. We additionally interrogated existing CMML prognostic models and found that they are all valid and have comparable performance but are vulnerable to upstaging. Using random forest survival analysis for variable discovery, we demonstrated that the prognostic power of clinical variables alone is limited. Last, we confirmed the independent prognostic relevance of ASXL1 gene mutations and identified the novel adverse prognostic impact imparted by CBL mutations. Our data suggest that combinations of clinical and molecular information may be required to improve the accuracy of current CMML prognostication.

Incorporation of molecular data into the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System in treated patients with myelodysplastic syndromes

The Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) was developed for untreated myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients based on clinical data. We created and validated a new model that incorporates mutational data to improve the predictive capacity of the IPSS-R in treated MDS patients. Clinical and mutational data from treated MDS patients diagnosed between January 2000 and January 2012 were used to develop the new prognostic system. A total of 508 patients were divided into training (n=333) and validation (n=175) cohorts. Independent significant prognostic factors for survival included age, IPSS-R, EZH2, SF3B1 and TP53. Weighted coefficients for each factor were used to build the new linear predictive model, which produced four prognostic groups: low, intermediate-1, intermediate-2 and high with a median overall survival of 37.4, 23.2, 19.9 and 12.2 months, respectively, P<0.001. Significant improvement in the C-index of the new model (0.73) was observed compared with the IPSS-R (0.69). The new model predicted outcome both in a separate validation cohort and in another cohort of patients with paired samples at different time points during their disease course. The addition of mutational data to the IPSS-R makes it dynamic and enhances its predictive ability in treated MDS patients regardless of their initial or subsequent therapies.

Randomized Phase II Study of Azacitidine Alone or in Combination With Lenalidomide or With Vorinostat in Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes and Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia: North American Intergroup Study SWOG S1117

Purpose Azacitidine is standard, first-line therapy in higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Whether azacitidine-based combinations with lenalidomide or vorinostat produce superior overall response rates (ORRs) to azacitidine is not known. Patients and Methods North American Intergroup Study S1117 is a phase II/III trial that randomly assigned patients with higher-risk MDS and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) 1:1:1 to azacitidine (75 mg/m2/day on days 1 to 7 of a 28-day cycle); azacitidine plus lenalidomide (10 mg/day on days 1 to 21); or azacitidine plus vorinostat (300 mg twice daily on days 3 to 9). The primary phase II end point was improved ORR. Results Of 277 patients from 90 centers, 92 received azacitidine, 93 received azacitidine plus lenalidomide, and 92 received azacitidine plus vorinostat. Median age was 70 years (range, 28 to 93 years), 85 patients (31%) were female, and 53 patients (19%) had CMML. Serious adverse events were similar across arms, although combination-arm patients were more likely to undergo nonprotocol-defined dose modifications ( P < .001).With a median follow-up of 23 months (range, 1 to 43 months), the ORR was 38% for patients receiving azacitidine, 49% for azacitidine plus lenalidomide ( P = .14 v azacitidine), and 27% for azacitidine plus vorinostat ( P = .16 v azacitidine). For patients with CMML, ORR was higher for azacitidine plus lenalidomide versus azacitidine (68% v 28%, P = .02) but similar for all arms across cytogenetic subgroups, as was remission duration and overall survival. ORR was higher with mutations in DNMT3A and lower for SRSF2, whereas ORR duration improved with fewer mutations. Lenalidomide dose reduction was associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.30; P = .05). Conclusion Patients with higher-risk MDS treated with azacitidine-based combinations had similar ORR to azacitidine monotherapy, although patients with CMML benefitted from azacitidine plus lenalidomide. The efficacy of combination regimens may have been affected by dose modifications.

Stem cell collection in patients with multiple myeloma: impact of induction therapy and mobilization regimen

Lenalidomide is an active treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) and is increasingly used as part of the initial treatment of this disease. Recent reports have suggested decreases in the number of CD34+ cells collected and increases in the failure rate among patients whose initial therapy contained lenalidomide when mobilized with G-CSF alone. A retrospective data analysis of 364 patients with MM who underwent stem cell mobilization and attempted harvest at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania between January 2002 and December 2007 was performed. Forty-three of the patients received lenalidomide in their induction regimen, and were mobilized with either CY and G-CSF or G-CSF alone. The number of apheresis cycles and the failure rate were lower, whereas the mean number of collected stem cells was higher in patients who were mobilized with CY and G-CSF in comparison with G-CSF alone. This suggests that lenalidomide does not prevent the harvest of adequate numbers of CD34 cells for autologous stem cell transplant, but mobilization with G-CSF and CY may be required to obtain adequate numbers of stem cells. Finally, in our study, the number of lenalidomide cycles did not correlate with stem cell yield.

Comparison of risk stratification tools in predicting outcomes of patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes treated with azanucleosides

Established prognostic tools in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) were largely derived from untreated patient cohorts. Although azanucleosides are standard therapies for higher-risk (HR)-MDS, the relative prognostic performance of existing prognostic tools among patients with HR-MDS receiving azanucleoside therapy is unknown. In the MDS Clinical Research Consortium database, we compared the prognostic utility of the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS), revised IPSS (IPSS-R), MD Anderson Prognostic Scoring System (MDAPSS), World Health Organization-based Prognostic Scoring System (WPSS) and the French Prognostic Scoring System (FPSS) among 632 patients who presented with HR-MDS and were treated with azanucleosides as the first-line therapy. Median follow-up from diagnosis was 15.7 months. No prognostic tool predicted the probability of achieving an objective response. Nonetheless, all five tools were associated with overall survival (OS, P=0.025 for the IPSS, P=0.011 for WPSS and P<0.001 for the other three tools). The corrected Akaike Information Criteria, which were used to compare OS with the different prognostic scoring systems as covariates (lower is better) were 4138 (MDAPSS), 4156 (FPSS), 4196 (IPSS-R), 4186 (WPSS) and 4196 (IPSS). Patients in the highest-risk groups of the prognostic tools had a median OS from diagnosis of 11−16 months and should be considered for up-front transplantation or experimental approaches.

Molecular Testing in Myelodysplastic Syndromes for the Practicing Oncologist: Will the Progress Fulfill the Promise?

UNLABELLED Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are heterogeneous hematopoietic neoplasms that are driven by somatically acquired genetic mutations and epigenetic alterations. Accurate risk stratification is essential for delivery of risk-adaptive therapeutic interventions. The current prognostic tools sum the impact of clinical, pathologic, and laboratory parameters. Newer technologies with next-generation targeted deep sequencing and whole-genome and -exome sequencing have identified several recurrent mutations that play a vital role in the pathophysiology of MDS and the impact of these genetic changes on disease phenotype. Equally important, well-annotated databases of MDS patients with paired clinicopathologic and genetic data have enabled better understanding of the independent prognostic impact of several molecular mutations on important clinical endpoints such as overall survival and probability of leukemic progression. Cumulative evidence suggests that genomic data can also be used clinically to aid with the diagnosis, prognosis, prediction of response to specific therapies, and the development of novel and rationally targeted therapies. However, the optimal use of this mutational profiling remains a work in progress and currently there is no standard set of genes or techniques that are recommended for routine use in the clinic. In this review, we discuss the genomic revolution and its impact on our understanding of MDS biology and risk stratification. We also discuss the current role and the challenges of the application of genetic mutational data into daily clinical practice and how future research could help improve the prognostication precision and specific therapy selection for patients with MDS. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Heterogeneity in clinical outcomes of MDS is partly related to interpatient variability of recurrent somatic mutations that drive disease phenotype and progression. Although clinical risk stratification tools have functioned well in prognostication for patients with MDS, their ability to predict clinical benefits of specific MDS therapies is limited. Molecular testing shows promise in aiding diagnosis, risk stratification, and therapy-specific benefit prediction for MDS patients. Nonetheless, logistical issues related to assay performance standardization, validation, interpretation, and development of guidelines for how to use the results to inform clinical decisions are yet to be resolved.

Genomic determinants of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia

The biology, clinical phenotype and progression rate of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) are highly variable due to diverse initiating and secondary clonal genetic events. To determine the effects of molecular features including clonal hierarchy in CMML, we studied whole-exome and targeted next-generation sequencing data from 150 patients with robust clinical and molecular annotation assessed cross-sectionally and at serial time points of disease evolution. To identify molecular lesions unique to CMML, we compared it to the related myeloid neoplasms (N=586), including juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia, myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and primary monocytic acute myeloid leukemia and discerned distinct molecular profiles despite similar pathomorphological features. Within CMML, mutations in certain pathways correlated with clinical classification, for example, proliferative vs dysplastic features. While most CMML patients (59%) had ancestral (dominant/co-dominant) mutations involving TET2, SRSF2 or ASXL1 genes, secondary subclonal hierarchy correlated with clinical phenotypes or outcomes. For example, progression was associated with acquisition of new expanding clones carrying biallelic TET2 mutations or RAS family, or spliceosomal gene mutations. In contrast, dysplastic features correlated with mutations usually encountered in MDS (for example, SF3B1 and U2AF1). Classification of CMML based on hierarchies of ancestral and subclonal mutational events may correlate strongly with clinical features and prognosis.

The Efficacy of Current Prognostic Models in Predicting Outcome of Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes at the Time of Hypomethylating Agent Failure

Several prognostic scoring systems have been developed to risk stratify patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) in order to serve as clinical decision tools. Such models include: the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS),[1][1] the World Health Organization (WHO) classification-based

Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia: Forefront of the field in 2015

Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) includes components of both myelodysplastic syndrome and myeloproliferative neoplasms and is associated with a characteristic peripheral monocytosis. CMML is caused by the proliferation of an abnormal hematopoietic stem cell clone and may be influenced by microenvironmental changes. The disease is rare and has undergone revisions in its classification. We review the recent classification strategies as well as diagnostic criteria, focusing on CMMLs genetic alterations and unique pathophysiology. We also discuss the latest molecular characterization of the disease, including how molecular factors affect current prognostic models. Finally, we focus on available treatment strategies, with a special emphasis on experimental and forthcoming therapies.

Tet2 loss leads to hypermutagenicity in haematopoietic stem/progenitor cells

TET2 is a dioxygenase that catalyses multiple steps of 5-methylcytosine oxidation. Although TET2 mutations frequently occur in various types of haematological malignancies, the mechanism by which they increase risk for these cancers remains poorly understood. Here we show that Tet2−/− mice develop spontaneous myeloid, T- and B-cell malignancies after long latencies. Exome sequencing of Tet2−/− tumours reveals accumulation of numerous mutations, including Apc, Nf1, Flt3, Cbl, Notch1 and Mll2, which are recurrently deleted/mutated in human haematological malignancies. Single-cell-targeted sequencing of wild-type and premalignant Tet2−/− Lin−c-Kit+ cells shows higher mutation frequencies in Tet2−/− cells. We further show that the increased mutational burden is particularly high at genomic sites that gained 5-hydroxymethylcytosine, where TET2 normally binds. Furthermore, TET2-mutated myeloid malignancy patients have significantly more mutational events than patients with wild-type TET2. Thus, Tet2 loss leads to hypermutagenicity in haematopoietic stem/progenitor cells, suggesting a novel TET2 loss-mediated mechanism of haematological malignancy pathogenesis.