MAGIC-DR: An interpretable machine-learning guided approach for acute myeloid leukemia measurable residual disease analysis.

Multiparameter flow cytometry is widely used for acute myeloid leukemia minimal residual disease testing (AML MRD) but is time consuming and demands substantial expertise. Machine learning offers potential advancements in accuracy and efficiency, but has yet to be widely adopted for this application. To explore this, we trained single cell XGBoost classifiers from 98 diagnostic AML cell populations and 30 MRD negative samples. Performance was assessed by cross-validation. Predictions were integrated with UMAP as a heatmap parameter for an augmented/interactive AML MRD analysis framework, which was benchmarked against traditional MRD analysis for 25 test cases. The results showed that XGBoost achieved a median AUC of 0.97, effectively distinguishing diverse AML cell populations from normal cells. When integrated with UMAP, the classifiers highlighted MRD populations against the background of normal events. Our pipeline, MAGIC-DR, incorporated classifier predictions and UMAP into flow cytometry standard (FCS) files. This enabled a human-in-the-loop machine learning guided MRD workflow. Validation against conventional analysis for 25 MRD samples showed 100% concordance in myeloid blast detection, with MAGIC-DR also identifying several immature monocytic populations not readily found by conventional analysis. In conclusion, Integrating a supervised classifier with unsupervised dimension reduction offers a robust method for AML MRD analysis that can be seamlessly integrated into conventional workflows. Our approach can support and augment human analysis by highlighting abnormal populations that can be gated on for quantification and further assessment. This has the potential to speed up MRD analysis, and potentially improve detection sensitivity for certain AML immunophenotypes.

Severe Corneal Melt Post Trans-Scleral Cyclodiode in a Case of Neovascular Glaucoma Secondary to Coats Disease: A Case Report.

A novel case of neurotrophic keratitis and severe corneal melt requiring surgical management is presented 1 month following trans-scleral cyclodiode for Coats disease and neovascular glaucoma. Risk factors contributing to the complication include previous extracapsular cataract surgery, perioperative use of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatories and dexamethasone/neomycin, as well as other topical drops containing preservatives such as benzalkonium chloride. Meticulous consideration of preoptimization of the ocular surface and rationalization of perioperative eye drop regimes is discussed.

Glasdegib plus intensive or non-intensive chemotherapy for untreated acute myeloid leukemia: results from the randomized, phase 3 BRIGHT AML 1019 trial.

This is the primary report of the randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 BRIGHT AML 1019 clinical trial of glasdegib in combination with intensive chemotherapy (cytarabine and daunorubicin) or non-intensive chemotherapy (azacitidine) in patients with untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Overall survival (primary endpoint) was similar between the glasdegib and placebo arms in the intensive (n = 404; hazard ratio [HR] 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.782-1.408; two-sided p = 0.749) and non-intensive (n = 325; HR 0.99; 95% CI: 0.768-1.289; two-sided p = 0.969) studies. The proportion of patients who experienced treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for glasdegib versus placebo (intensive: 99.0% vs. 98.5%; non-intensive: 99.4% vs. 98.8%). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea, febrile neutropenia, and anemia in the intensive study and anemia, constipation, and nausea in the non-intensive study. The addition of glasdegib to either cytarabine and daunorubicin or azacitidine did not significantly improve overall survival and the primary efficacy endpoint for the BRIGHT AML 1019 phase 3 trial was not met. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03416179.

Customized middleware experience in a tertiary care hospital hematology laboratory.

Background: In the clinical laboratory, middleware is a software application that sits between the analyzer and the laboratory information system (LIS). One of the more common uses of middleware is to perform more efficient result autoverification than can be achieved by the LIS or analyzer alone. In addition to autoverification, middleware can support highly customized rules to handle samples and results from specific patient locations. The objective of this study was to review the impact of customized middleware rules that were designed and implemented in the hematology laboratory of a 1000-bed tertiary care adult academic center hospital. Methods: Three novel initiatives using middleware rules to achieve workflow efficiencies were retrospectively reviewed over different audit periods: preliminary neutrophil resulting for oncology patients, microcytosis interpretive comments, and 1 white blood cell differential (WBCD) reported per day. In addition, autoverification rates for complete blood count and differential (CBCD) and coagulation tests were calculated. Results: A preliminary neutrophil count was released from middleware on average 64 min before the final CBCD for Leukemia/Bone Marrow Transplant (L/BMT) outpatients, and on average 59 min earlier for oncology patients. Reflexing interpretive comments for select instances of microcytosis removed on average 500 slides per month from technologist review with an estimated cost savings of approximately $3383.33 CAD per month. The 1 WBCD per day rule resulted in a 5.1% cancelation rate, resulting in an estimated monthly cost savings of $943.46 CAD in reagents and technologist time. Finally, middleware rules achieved very high autoverification rates of 97.2% and 88.3% for CBC and CBCD results, respectively. Conclusions: Implementation of customized middleware hematology rules in our institution resulted in multiple positive impacts on workflow, achieving high autoverification rates, reduced slide reviews, cost savings, and improved standardization.

A phase 1b study of glasdegib + azacitidine in patients with untreated acute myeloid leukemia and higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.

This phase 1b study evaluated glasdegib (100 mg once daily) + azacitidine in adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. Of 72 patients enrolled, 12 were in a lead-in safety cohort (LIC) and 60 were in the AML and MDS (including CMML) expansion cohorts. In the LIC, the safety profile of glasdegib + azacitidine was determined to be consistent with those of glasdegib or azacitidine alone, with no evidence of drug-drug interaction. In the expansion cohort, the most frequently (≥ 10%) reported non-hematologic Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were decreased appetite, electrocardiogram QT prolongation, and hypertension in the AML cohort and sepsis, diarrhea, hypotension, pneumonia, and hyperglycemia in the MDS cohort. Overall response rates in the AML and MDS cohorts were 30.0% and 33.3%, respectively; 47.4% and 46.7% of patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline achieved independence. Median overall survival (95% confidence interval) was 9.2 (6.2-14.0) months and 15.8 (9.3-21.9) months, respectively, and response was associated with molecular mutation clearance. Glasdegib + azacitidine in patients with newly diagnosed AML or MDS demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and preliminary evidence of clinical benefits.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02367456.

Clinical benefit of glasdegib plus low-dose cytarabine in patients with de novo and secondary acute myeloid leukemia: long-term analysis of a phase II randomized trial.

This analysis from the phase II BRIGHT AML 1003 trial reports the long-term efficacy and safety of glasdegib + low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. The multicenter, open-label study randomized (2:1) patients to receive glasdegib + LDAC (de novo, n = 38; secondary acute myeloid leukemia, n = 40) or LDAC alone (de novo, n = 18; secondary acute myeloid leukemia, n = 20). At the time of analysis, 90% of patients had died, with the longest follow-up since randomization 36 months. The combination of glasdegib and LDAC conferred superior overall survival (OS) versus LDAC alone; hazard ratio (HR) 0.495; (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.325-0.752); p = 0.0004; median OS was 8.3 versus 4.3 months. Improvement in OS was consistent across cytogenetic risk groups. In a post-hoc subgroup analysis, a survival trend with glasdegib + LDAC was observed in patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (HR 0.720; 95% CI 0.395-1.312; p = 0.14; median OS 6.6 vs 4.3 months) and secondary acute myeloid leukemia (HR 0.287; 95% CI 0.151-0.548; p < 0.0001; median OS 9.1 vs 4.1 months). The incidence of adverse events in the glasdegib + LDAC arm decreased after 90 days' therapy: 83.7% versus 98.7% during the first 90 days. Glasdegib + LDAC versus LDAC alone continued to demonstrate superior OS in patients with acute myeloid leukemia; the clinical benefit with glasdegib + LDAC was particularly prominent in patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01546038.

Comparative effectiveness of glasdegib versus venetoclax combined with low-dose cytarabine in acute myeloid leukemia.

Background: Two combination therapies recently approved and recommended for use in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) in acute myeloid leukemia patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy are glasdegib+LDAC and venetoclax+LDAC. Materials & methods: An indirect treatment comparison used median overall survival, overall survival hazard ratios, complete remission (CR), CR+CR with incomplete blood count recovery and transfusion independence to assess comparative effectiveness, and a simulated treatment comparison accounted for differences in patient characteristics between trials. Results: Differences in efficacy between glasdegib+LDAC and venetoclax+LDAC were suggestive and not statistically significant. Conclusion: With no significant differences in comparative effectiveness, considerations such as safety profiles, burden of administration and patient preference are likely to guide treatment decisions.

Evaluation of the impact of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of glasdegib in otherwise healthy volunteers.

PURPOSE: Glasdegib is being developed for indications in myeloid malignancies. The effect of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of a single, oral, 100-mg glasdegib dose under fasted conditions was assessed. METHODS: Open-label, parallel-group study (NCT03596567). Participants of good general health were selected and categorized, based on their estimated glomerular filtration rate, into normal (≥ 90 mL/min), moderate (≥ 30 to < 60 mL/min), or severe (< 30 mL/min) renal impairment groups. Blood samples were collected up to 120 h post-dose. PK exposure parameters were calculated using non-compartmental analysis. RESULTS: All 18 participants completed the study. Respectively, ratios of adjusted geometric means (90% confidence interval) for glasdegib area under the curve from time 0 to infinity and peak plasma concentration versus normal participants were 205% (142-295%) and 137% (97-193%) in the moderate group, and 202% (146-281%) and 120% (77-188%) in the severe group. Glasdegib median time to peak plasma concentration was 2.0 h in both impairment groups and 1.5 h in the normal group. Mean oral clearance was decreased by approximately 50% in both renal impairment groups compared with the normal group. The plasma-free fraction of glasdegib was not altered by renal impairment. Five all-causality adverse events were reported in three participants; two were considered treatment-related. CONCLUSION: The similar changes in exposure observed for participants with renal impairment, coupled with the known safety data from clinical experience, suggest that a lower starting dose of glasdegib may not be required for moderate or severe renal impairment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03596567 (started May 17, 2018).

Evaluation of the Relationship of Glasdegib Exposure and Safety End Points in Patients With Refractory Solid Tumors and Hematologic Malignancies.

Glasdegib is approved for treating acute myeloid leukemia in elderly patients at 100 mg once daily in combination with low-dose cytarabine. Exposure-efficacy analysis showed that the survival benefit of glasdegib was not glasdegib exposure-dependent. The relationship between glasdegib exposure and adverse event (AE) cluster terms of clinical concern was explored in this analysis. The incidence and severity of dysgeusia, muscle spasms, renal toxicity, and QT interval prolonged was modeled using ordinal logistic regression. AEs were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03). Estimated pharmacokinetic parameters were used to derive glasdegib exposure metrics. Demographic characteristics, disease factors, and other variables of interest as potential moderators of safety signals were evaluated. Clinical trial data from patients who received single-agent glasdegib (N = 70; 5-640 mg once daily); or glasdegib (N = 202, 100-200 mg once daily) with low-dose cytarabine, decitabine, or daunorubicin and cytarabine were analyzed. Glasdegib exposure was statistically significantly associated with the cluster term safety end points dysgeusia, muscle spasms, renal toxicity, and QT interval prolonged. The impact of age on muscle spasms and baseline body weight and creatinine clearance on renal toxicity helped explain the AE grade distribution. At the 100 mg once daily clinical dose, the predicted probabilities of the highest AE grade were 11.3%, 6.7%, 7.7%, and 2.5% for dysgeusia, muscle spasms, renal toxicity, and QT interval prolonged, respectively. Overall, the predicted probability of developing an AE of any severity for these safety end points was low. Therefore, no starting dose adjustments are recommended for glasdegib based on the observed safety profile.

Malaria Screening Using Front-Line Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification.

OBJECTIVES: We implemented front-line loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP)-based malaria screening in our nonendemic multicenter health region to reduce reliance on microscopy without sacrificing diagnostic efficiency. We aimed to evaluate changes in test volumes, positivity rates, turnaround times, and approximate labor time savings resulting from implementation of LAMP-based malaria testing to assess the efficacy of the novel testing algorithm in our regional hub-and-spoke testing model. METHODS: We reviewed data generated from institutional malaria testing between 2016 and 2019, having implemented LAMP in October 2018 as a front-line screening test for all malaria investigations from our hub facility and investigations from satellite facilities with negative rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and microscopy. RESULTS: Blood film microscopy and RDT workloads decreased substantially in the year following LAMP implementation (by 90% and 46%, respectively,) despite similar numbers of patients tested and positivity rates for malaria compared with historical data. LAMP turnaround times (TATs) were comparable to historical TATs for RDTs, and TATs for RDTs and thick films did not increase with the change in workflow. CONCLUSIONS: LAMP was successfully implemented in our multicenter health region malaria diagnostic algorithm, significantly reducing reliance on microscopic evaluations and RDT and providing substantial labor time savings without compromising TATs.

An evaluation of overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia and the relationship with glasdegib treatment and exposure.

PURPOSE: Glasdegib, an oral inhibitor of the Hedgehog signaling pathway, is approved in the United States in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) to treat patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapy. This population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis characterized the time course of survival with glasdegib + LDAC relative to LDAC alone, and explored whether the differences in glasdegib exposure at the clinical dose of 100 mg once daily (QD) significantly affected overall survival (OS). METHODS: Data from the BRIGHT AML 1003 trial in patients with AML were included in treatment-response (glasdegib + LDAC, n = 78; LDAC alone, n = 38) and exposure-response (glasdegib + LDAC, n = 75) analyses. RESULTS: The analyses demonstrate that patients treated with glasdegib + LDAC (vs LDAC alone) at any time point during the study period were 58% less likely to die, translating to prolonging of median OS by ~ 5 months (hazard ratio 0.42 [95% confidence interval 0.28-0.66]). Variability in glasdegib exposures did not impact the risk of death. Additionally, potential covariates such as patient demographics, prior treatment with a hypomethylating agent, baseline safety laboratory values, and disease characteristics, did not impact the probability of OS. CONCLUSION: Together these results confirm that glasdegib + LDAC treatment (vs. LDAC alone) is associated with a significant survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed AML, and that variability in glasdegib doses (e.g., for dose reductions) and exposures do not compromise the survival benefit of glasdegib 100 mg QD. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01546038.

Survival outcomes and clinical benefit in patients with acute myeloid leukemia treated with glasdegib and low-dose cytarabine according to response to therapy.

BACKGROUND: The phase 2 BRIGHT AML 1003 trial evaluated efficacy and safety of glasdegib + low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. The multicenter, open-label study randomized patients to receive glasdegib + LDAC (n = 78) or LDAC alone (n = 38). The rate of complete remission (CR) was 19.2% in the glasdegib + LDAC arm versus 2.6% in the LDAC arm (P = 0.015). METHODS: This post hoc analysis determines whether the clinical benefits of glasdegib are restricted to patients who achieve CR, or if they extend to those who do not achieve CR. RESULTS: In patients who did not achieve CR, the addition of glasdegib to LDAC improved overall survival (OS) versus LDAC alone (hazard ratio = 0.63 [95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.98]; P = 0.0182; median OS, 5.0 vs 4.1 months). Additionally, more patients receiving glasdegib + LDAC achieved durable recovery of absolute neutrophil count (≥ 1000/µl, 45.6% vs 35.5%), hemoglobin (≥ 9 g/dl, 54.4% vs 38.7%), and platelets (≥ 100,000/µl, 29.8% vs 9.7%). Transfusion independence was achieved by 15.0% and 2.9% of patients receiving glasdegib + LDAC and LDAC alone, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, these data suggest that there are clinical benefits with glasdegib in the absence of CR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01546038 (March 7, 2012).

Overall survival of glasdegib in combination with low-dose cytarabine, azacitidine, and decitabine among adult patients with previously untreated AML: comparative effectiveness using simulated treatment comparisons.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, treatments for older patients with AML ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapies were limited to hypomethylating agents, low-dose cytarabine (LDAC), or clinical trials. In 2018, the FDA approved combination glasdegib (GLAS) plus LDAC based on Phase II results demonstrating improved overall survival (OS) versus LDAC alone in previously untreated AML. However, no randomized clinical trials have directly compared GLAS + LDAC with other AML treatments. OBJECTIVE: Using both indirect treatment comparison (ITC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC), which adjusts for baseline differences between trials, the comparative effectiveness of GLAS + LDAC was compared with hypomethylating agent azacitidine (AZA) or decitabine (DEC). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified published trials of AZA or DEC versus LDAC among older AML patients ineligible for high-intensity chemotherapy. In addition to standard and covariate-adjusted ITC, STC was performed following guidance from the NICE Decision Support Unit (DSU). Using individual patient data from the Phase II GLAS + LDAC study, population-specific OS hazard ratios (HR) for GLAS + LDAC versus AZA or DEC were compared. Furthermore, covariate-adjusted ITC (Cox multivariate models) and STC were repeated using GLAS + LDAC versus LDAC data propensity-weighted for within-trial mean cytogenetic risk. As this initial step was not specified in the DSU, results from this second method were compared to the first STC following DSU guidance only. RESULTS: Standard ITC and STC both demonstrated significantly improved OS for GLAS + LDAC versus either AZA or DEC. Adjusting for key covariates, STC stepwise exponential models demonstrated GLAS + LDAC superiority to both AZA (HR=0.424; 95% CI: 0.228, 0.789) and DEC (HR=0.505; 95% CI: 0.269, 0.949). These significant results held using full or step-wise approaches, following DSU guidance only or the weighted STC approach. CONCLUSION: Using ITC and STC, GLAS + LDAC demonstrated superior OS to AZA or DEC in an adult population with previously untreated AML for whom intensive chemotherapy is not an option.

Glasdegib plus intensive/nonintensive chemotherapy in untreated acute myeloid leukemia: BRIGHT AML 1019 Phase III trials.

Glasdegib, an oral Hedgehog pathway inhibitor, has been associated with significantly improved survival when combined with low-dose cytarabine in patients with untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who were unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy, when compared with low-dose cytarabine alone. BRIGHT AML 1019 (NCT03416179) comprises two independently powered Phase III, randomized (1:1), double-blind global trials evaluating oral glasdegib 100 mg once daily or placebo plus one of two standard chemotherapy regimens in adults with untreated AML. The intensive trial combines glasdegib/placebo with cytarabine and daunorubicin (7 + 3), while the nonintensive trial combines glasdegib/placebo with azacitidine. The primary end point of both studies is overall survival. Secondary end points include response, time to and duration of response, event-free survival, safety, patient-reported outcomes and pharmacokinetics. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03416179.

Phase 1/2 trial of glasdegib in patients with primary or secondary myelofibrosis previously treated with ruxolitinib.

Glasdegib is a potent and selective oral inhibitor of the Hedgehog pathway. We report data from the single-arm, lead-in cohort of an open-label phase 1b/2 trial of glasdegib in patients with primary/secondary myelofibrosis (MF) previously treated with at least one Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi). Patients received glasdegib 100 mg orally once daily until there was no further clinical benefit. Primary endpoints included adverse events (AEs). Secondary endpoints included patients with spleen volume reduction (SVR) ≥35% at week 24, patients with ≥50% total symptom score (TSS) reduction, and pharmacokinetics. All 21 treated patients had one or more AE and five (23.8%) had serious AEs. Most common (>30%) AEs were dysgeusia (61.9%), muscle spasms (57.1%), alopecia (38.1%), fatigue (33.3%), and decreased appetite (33.3%). Although no patient had ≥35% SVR at week 24, one patient previously treated with ruxolitinib had an SVR of 32.9%. At week 12, two (9.5%) patients had ≥50% reduction in TSS from baseline and ˜40% had ≥20% reduction. One patient had an anaemia response. Following administration of glasdegib 100 mg once daily, the median time to peak plasma concentrations at steady-state generally occurred at 1 h post-dose. The safety profile of glasdegib monotherapy was manageable in patients with primary/secondary MF. Further study of glasdegib in combination with JAKi in a MF population may be warranted.

Randomized comparison of low dose cytarabine with or without glasdegib in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome.

Glasdegib is a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor. This phase II, randomized, open-label, multicenter study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01546038) evaluated the efficacy of glasdegib plus low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy. Glasdegib 100 mg (oral, QD) was administered continuously in 28-day cycles; LDAC 20 mg (subcutaneous, BID) was administered for 10 per 28 days. Patients (stratified by cytogenetic risk) were randomized (2:1) to receive glasdegib/LDAC or LDAC. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Eighty-eight and 44 patients were randomized to glasdegib/LDAC and LDAC, respectively. Median (80% confidence interval [CI]) overall survival was 8.8 (6.9-9.9) months with glasdegib/LDAC and 4.9 (3.5-6.0) months with LDAC (hazard ratio, 0.51; 80% CI, 0.39-0.67, P = 0.0004). Fifteen (17.0%) and 1 (2.3%) patients in the glasdegib/LDAC and LDAC arms, respectively, achieved complete remission (P < 0.05). Nonhematologic grade 3/4 all-causality adverse events included pneumonia (16.7%) and fatigue (14.3%) with glasdegib/LDAC and pneumonia (14.6%) with LDAC. Clinical efficacy was evident across patients with diverse mutational profiles. Glasdegib plus LDAC has a favorable benefit-risk profile and may be a promising option for AML patients unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy.

Glasdegib in combination with cytarabine and daunorubicin in patients with AML or high-risk MDS: Phase 2 study results.

Glasdegib is a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor. This ongoing, open-label, phase 2 study (NCT01546038) evaluated glasdegib plus cytarabine/daunorubicin in patients with untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Patients received glasdegib 100 mg orally, once daily in continuous 28-day cycles from day -3, with intravenous cytarabine 100 mg/m2 on days 1-7 and daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 on days 1-3. Patients in remission then received consolidation therapy (2-4 cycles of cytarabine 1 g/m2 twice daily on days 1, 3, 5 of each cycle), followed by maintenance glasdegib (maximum 6 cycles). Primary endpoint was complete remission (CR) in patients aged ≥55 years. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), safety and outcome by mutational status. Patients had a median (range) age of 64.0 (27-75) years, 60.0% were male, and 84.5% were white. In 69 evaluable patients, 46.4% (80% confidence interval [CI]: 38.7-54.1) achieved investigator-reported CR. Among patients ≥55 years old (n = 60), 40.0% (80% CI 31.9-48.1) achieved CR. Among all 69 patients, median OS was 14.9 (80% CI 13.4-19.3) months, with 12-month survival probability 66.6% (80% CI 58.5-73.4). The most common treatment-related adverse events (≥50% patients) were diarrhea and nausea. There were no significant associations between mutational status (12 genes) and clinical response, suggesting potential benefit across diverse molecular profiles. Glasdegib plus cytarabine/daunorubicin was well tolerated and associated with clinical activity in patients with untreated AML or high-risk MDS. A randomized phase 3 trial of glasdegib in combination with chemotherapy (7 + 3 schedule) is ongoing.