Clinical and Genomic-Based Decision Support System to Define the Optimal Timing of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation in Patients With Myelodysplastic Syndromes.

PURPOSE: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) is the only potentially curative treatment for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Several issues must be considered when evaluating the benefits and risks of HSCT for patients with MDS, with the timing of transplantation being a crucial question. Here, we aimed to develop and validate a decision support system to define the optimal timing of HSCT for patients with MDS on the basis of clinical and genomic information as provided by the Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-M). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied a retrospective population of 7,118 patients, stratified into training and validation cohorts. A decision strategy was built to estimate the average survival over an 8-year time horizon (restricted mean survival time [RMST]) for each combination of clinical and genomic covariates and to determine the optimal transplantation policy by comparing different strategies. RESULTS: Under an IPSS-M based policy, patients with either low and moderate-low risk benefited from a delayed transplantation policy, whereas in those belonging to moderately high-, high- and very high-risk categories, immediate transplantation was associated with a prolonged life expectancy (RMST). Modeling decision analysis on IPSS-M versus conventional Revised IPSS (IPSS-R) changed the transplantation policy in a significant proportion of patients (15% of patient candidate to be immediately transplanted under an IPSS-R-based policy would benefit from a delayed strategy by IPSS-M, whereas 19% of candidates to delayed transplantation by IPSS-R would benefit from immediate HSCT by IPSS-M), resulting in a significant gain-in-life expectancy under an IPSS-M-based policy (P = .001). CONCLUSION: These results provide evidence for the clinical relevance of including genomic features into the transplantation decision making process, allowing personalizing the hazards and effectiveness of HSCT in patients with MDS.

Cost-effectiveness of adding quizartinib to induction chemotherapy for patients with FLT3-mutant acute myeloid leukemia.

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.

Hematocrit control and thrombotic risk in patients with polycythemia vera treated with ruxolitinib in clinical practice.

Polycythemia vera (PV) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by unregulated red blood cell production resulting in elevated hemoglobin and/or hematocrit levels. Patients often have symptoms such as fatigue, pruritus, and painful splenomegaly, but are also at risk of thrombosis, both venous and arterial. Ruxolitinib, a selective Janus kinase inhibitor, is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as second-line cytoreductive treatment after intolerance or inadequate response to hydroxyurea. Although ruxolitinib has been widely used in this setting, limited data exist in the literature on ruxolitinib treatment patterns and outcomes among patients with PV in routine clinical practice. We report a retrospective, observational, cohort study of patients treated for PV with ruxolitinib across three US centers (academic and regional practice) from December 2014-December 2019. The study included 69 patients, with a median follow-up duration of 3.7 years (95% CI, 2.9-4.4). Our data demonstrate very high rates of hematocrit control (88% of patients by three months and 89% by six months); few patients required dose adjustments or suspension. No arterial thromboses were observed; however, the follow-up duration does not allow for the generation of meaningful conclusions from this. Three patients had thrombotic events; one was in the setting of a second malignancy, one post-operative, and a third related to prolonged immobility. We also found that 28% of patients initiated ruxolitinib as a result of poorly controlled platelet counts, second only to hydroxyurea intolerance (46%) as a reason to start therapy. In clinical practice, ruxolitinib continues to be effective in controlling hematocrit levels after three and six months of treatment in patients and is associated with low thrombotic risk.

Treatment of Myelodysplastic Syndromes for Older Patients: Current State of Science, Challenges, and Opportunities.

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.

Differentiation syndrome associated with treatment with IDH2 inhibitor enasidenib - pooled analysis from clinical trials.

Treatment with enasidenib, a selective mutant-IDH2 inhibitor, has been associated with the development of differentiation syndrome (DS) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Studies on the incidence and clinical features of DS are limited in this setting, and diagnosis is challenging due to non-specific symptoms. This study assessed the incidence, diagnostic criteria, risk factors, and correlation with clinical response of DS based on the pooled analysis of 4 clinical trials in patients with IDH2-mutated AML treated with enasidenib as monotherapy, or in combination with azacitidine or with chemotherapy. Across the total AML population, 10.4% (67/643) had ≥1 any-grade DS event, with highest incidence in patients who received enasidenib plus azacitidine and lowest incidence in patients who received enasidenib plus chemotherapy (17.6% [13/74] and 2.2% [2/93]). The most common symptoms of DS were dyspnea/hypoxia (80.6%) and pulmonary infiltrate (73.1%). Median time to onset of first DS event across all studies was 32 days (range: 4-129 days). Most patients (88.1%) received systemic steroids for treatment of DS. Evaluation of baseline risk factors for DS identified higher levels of bone marrow blasts and lactate dehydrogenase as independent factors associated with increased grade 3-5 DS risk. Overall, these results suggest that DS associated with IDH inhibition is manageable, given the benefits of enasidenib treatment in IDH2-mutated AML. We further characterized enasidenib-related DS in these patients and identified risk factors, which could be used for DS management in clinical practice. Clinical Trials #: NCT01915498, NCT02577406, NCT02677922, NCT02632708.

Clinical activity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of oral hypomethylating agents for myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms and acute myeloid leukemia: A multidisciplinary review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacokinetic (PK)-pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles, disease setting, dosing, and safety of oral and parenteral hypomethylating agents (HMAs) for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and to provide a multidisciplinary perspective on treatment selection and educational needs relating to HMA use. DATA SOURCES: Clinical and real-world data for parenteral decitabine and azacitidine and two oral HMAs: decitabine-cedazuridine (DEC-C) for MDS and azacitidine (CC-486) for AML maintenance therapy. DATA SUMMARY: Differences in the PK-PD profiles of oral and parenteral HMA formulations have implications for their potential toxicities and planned use. Oral DEC-C (decitabine 35 mg and cedazuridine 100 mg) has demonstrated equivalent systemic area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) exposure to a 5-day regimen of intravenous (IV) decitabine 20 mg/m2 and showed no significant difference in PD. The AUC equivalence of oral DEC-C and IV decitabine means that these regimens can be treated interchangeably (but must not be substituted within a cycle). Oral azacitidine has a distinct PK-PD profile versus IV or subcutaneous azacitidine, and the formulations are not bioequivalent or interchangeable owing to differences in plasma time-course kinetics and exposures. Clinical trials are ongoing to evaluate oral HMA combinations and novel oral HMAs, such as NTX-301 and ASTX030. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with oral HMAs has the potential to improve quality of life, treatment adherence, and disease outcomes versus parenteral HMAs. Better education of multidisciplinary teams on the factors affecting HMA treatment selection may help to improve treatment outcomes in patients with MDS or AML.

Hypomethylating agents plus venetoclax compared with intensive induction chemotherapy regimens in molecularly defined secondary AML.

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.

Myelodysplastic Syndromes and Myelodysplastic Syndromes/Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: A Real-World Experience From a Developing Country.

PURPOSE: Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) include a heterogeneous group of clonal bone marrow disorders characterized by ineffective hematopoiesis. They manifest as dysplasia in bone marrow hemopoietic elements associated with peripheral cytopenias with variable risk of AML transformation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed retrospectively registry data collected prospectively from patients with primary MDS and patients with MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) in the Jordan University Hospital between January 2007 and September 2021. The registry captured epidemiologic information such as date of diagnosis, age, gender, date of AML transformation, cytogenetics, MDS subtype, risk group according to Revised International Prognostic Scoring System, and survival. The registry also captured baseline ferritin, B12, and lactate dehydrogenase levels. RESULTS: A total of 112 patients with MDS and MDS/MPN were included in the registry. Median age at diagnosis was 59 years. The male-to-female ratio was about 1.2. In a multivariate cox regression model, baseline serum ferritin significantly affected survival as patients with levels exceeding 1,000 µg/L had a risk of death three times higher compared with those with <1,000 µg/L levels (P < .05). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, our study is the first comprehensive study examining the epidemiology and prognostic factors in patients with MDS and patients with MDS/MPN in Jordan. Our results show that MDS and MDS/MPN epidemiology in Jordan is different compared with Western countries. Our results also show that baseline serum ferritin levels can be used as a prognostic marker for patients with MDS.

PD-1H/VISTA mediates immune evasion in acute myeloid leukemia.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) presents a pressing medical need in that it is largely resistant to standard chemotherapy as well as modern therapeutics, such as targeted therapy and immunotherapy, including anti-programmed cell death protein (anti-PD) therapy. We demonstrate that programmed death-1 homolog (PD-1H), an immune coinhibitory molecule, is highly expressed in blasts from the bone marrow of AML patients, while normal myeloid cell subsets and T cells express PD-1H. In studies employing syngeneic and humanized AML mouse models, overexpression of PD-1H promoted the growth of AML cells, mainly by evading T cell-mediated immune responses. Importantly, ablation of AML cell-surface PD-1H by antibody blockade or genetic knockout significantly inhibited AML progression by promoting T cell activity. In addition, the genetic deletion of PD-1H from host normal myeloid cells inhibited AML progression, and the combination of PD-1H blockade with anti-PD therapy conferred a synergistic antileukemia effect. Our findings provide the basis for PD-1H as a potential therapeutic target for treating human AML.

Sabatolimab plus hypomethylating agents in previously untreated patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (STIMULUS-MDS1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sabatolimab is an immunotherapy targeting T-cell immunoglobulin domain and mucin domain-3 (TIM-3), an immuno-myeloid regulator expressed on immune cells and leukaemic stem cells. In this trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of sabatolimab plus hypomethylating agent with placebo plus hypomethylating agents in previously untreated patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. METHODS: STIMULUS-MDS1 was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study done at 54 investigational sites in 17 countries. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with intermediate-risk, high-risk, and very high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (according to Revised International Prognostic Scoring System criteria) who had not received previous treatment were included. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous sabatolimab (400 mg on day 8 and 22) or placebo plus a hypomethylating agent (intravenous decitabine 20 mg/m2 on day 1-5 or intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine 75 mg/m2 on day 1-7 or day 1-5 and day 8 and 9) every 28 days until treatment discontinuation. The two primary endpoints were complete response rate and progression-free survival, assessed in the full analysis set, which included all randomly assigned patients. Complete response was analysed, as prespecified, 7 months after the last patient was randomly assigned. All other analyses presented, including progression-free survival, were done at the final data cutoff prespecified via a protocol amendment on Sept 2, 2021. Safety was assessed in in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03946670, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between July 29, 2019, and Aug 10, 2020, 127 patients were randomly assigned to sabatolimab plus a hypomethylating agent group (sabatolimab group; n=65) or placebo plus a hypomethylating agent (placebo group; n=62). The median age of participants was 73 years (IQR 69-77), of whom 86 (68%) of 127 patients were male and 77 (61%) were White. The primary endpoints were not met. Complete response (cutoff date of March 10, 2021) was achieved in 14 (22%; 95% CI 12·3-33·5) of 65 patients in the sabatolimab group vs 11 (18%; 9·2-29·5) of 62 patients in the placebo group (p=0·77). At the cutoff date of the final analysis (March 1, 2022), median follow-up for progression-free survival was 17·8 months (IQR 16·6-19·4) in the sabatolimab group and 19·2 months (17·7-22·3) in the placebo group, and the median progression-free survival was 11·1 months (95% CI 7·6-17·6) in the sabatolimab group vs 8·5 months (6·9-11·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·75 [95% CI 0·48-1·17]; p=0·1022). The most common adverse events of any grade were neutropenia (35 [56%] of 62 patients in the sabatolimab group vs 43 [68%] of 63 patients in the placebo group), thrombocytopenia (30 [48%] vs 32 [51%]), constipation (29 [47%] vs 24 [38%]), diarrhoea (27 [44%] vs 14 [22%]), anaemia (22 [35%] vs 34 [54%]), febrile neutropenia (22 [35%] vs 15 [24%]), and leukopenia (15 [24%] vs 20 [32%]). One patient developed a serious potential treatment-related immune-mediated adverse event in the sabatolimab group. There was one treatment-related death in the sabatolimab group due to pneumonitis. INTERPRETATION: The addition of sabatolimab to hypomethylating agents in this study did not result in a significant improvement in complete response rates or progression-free survival. Sabatolimab had a manageable safety in most patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. A randomised phase 3 trial is ongoing to assess the potential benefit of sabatolimab plus azacitidine on overall survival in this setting. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Imetelstat in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes who have relapsed or are refractory to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (IMerge): a multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Unmet medical needs remain in patients with red blood cell transfusion-dependent (RBC-TD) lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS) who are not responding to or are ineligible for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Imetelstat, a competitive telomerase inhibitor, showed promising results in a phase 2 trial. We aimed to compare the RBC transfusion independence (RBC-TI) rate with imetelstat versus placebo in patients with RBC-TD LR-MDS. METHODS: In phase 3 of IMerge, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 118 sites including university hospitals, cancer centres, and outpatient clinics in 17 countries, patients (aged ≥18 years) with ESA-relapsed, ESA-refractory, or ESA-ineligible LR-MDS (low or intermediate-1 risk disease as per International Prognostic Scoring System [IPSS] criteria) were randomly assigned via a computer-generated schedule (2:1) to receive imetelstat 7·5 mg/kg or placebo, administered as a 2-h intravenous infusion, every 4 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomisation was stratified by previous RBC transfusion burden and IPSS risk group. Patients, investigators, and those analysing the data were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was 8-week RBC-TI, defined as the proportion of patients without RBC transfusions for at least 8 consecutive weeks starting on the day of randomisation until subsequent anti-cancer therapy, if any. Primary efficacy analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety analyses were conducted in patients who received at least one dose of trial medication or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02598661; substudy active and recruiting). FINDINGS: Between Sept 11, 2019, and Oct 13, 2021, 178 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (118 to imetelstat and 60 to placebo). 111 (62%) were male and 67 (38%) were female. 91 (77%) of 118 patients had discontinued treatment by data cutoff in the imetelstat group versus 45 (75%) in the placebo group; a further one patient in the placebo group did not receive treatment. Median follow-up was 19·5 months (IQR 12·0-23·4) in the imetelstat group and 17·5 months (12·1-22·7) in the placebo group. In the imetelstat group, 47 (40% [95% CI 30·9-49·3]) patients had an RBC-TI of at least 8 weeks versus nine (15% [7·1-26·6]) in the placebo group (rate difference 25% [9·9 to 36·9]; p=0·0008). Overall, 107 (91%) of 118 patients receiving imetelstat and 28 (47%) of 59 patients receiving placebo had grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-emergent grade 3-4 adverse events in patients taking imetelstat were neutropenia (80 [68%] patients who received imetelstat vs two [3%] who received placebo) and thrombocytopenia (73 [62%] vs five [8%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Imetelstat offers a novel mechanism of action with durable transfusion independence (approximately 1 year) and disease-modifying activity for heavily transfused patients with LR-MDS who are not responding to or are ineligible for ESAs. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development before April 18, 2019, and Geron Corporation thereafter.

A multicenter phase Ib trial of the histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms or acute myeloid leukemia refractory to hypomethylating agents.

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.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Refractory Anemia With Excess Blasts (RAEB) Who Receive Hypomethylating Agents (HMAs).

BACKGROUND: We sought to understand the clinical effectiveness associated with use of hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine (AZA) and decitabine (DEC) for patients with refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB; an established proxy for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms) in contemporary and representative real-world settings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, a linkage of cancer registry and Medicare claims data, to identify patients aged ≥ 66 years diagnosed with RAEB, between 2009 and 2017 in the United States, and who received AZA or DEC as first-line therapy. Outcomes measured were overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), and incidence of progression-related acute myeloid leukemia (AML). RESULTS: Of 973 eligible patients, 738 (75.8%) received AZA and 235 (24.2%) received DEC; 6.4% received hematopoietic cell transplantation during follow-up. In the overall population, median OS was 13.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.9-15.0), median EFS was 5.2 months (95% CI: 4.9-5.7), and 38.0% of patients progressed to AML. Incidences of AML progression and death were 25.6% and 29.9%, respectively, at Year 1, and 34.3% and 44.8%, respectively, at Year 2. There were no significant differences in clinical benefits between AZA and DEC. CONCLUSION: Median OS with both HMAs remained significantly shorter than in the AZA-001 clinical trial, highlighting how patient outcomes vary between clinical and real-world settings. Further research is required to understand why these disparities exist.

Traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage? The Leukemia and Cancer Perspective.

Today, approximately 50% of patients eligible for Medicare have opted for Medicare Advantage as their primary coverage. Whereas Medicare Advantage is a reasonable option for healthy senior Americans, issues arise once they have serious or chronic medical problems, which are prevalent among older Americans. This review details the pros and cons of standard Medicare vs Medicare Advantage. The authors recommend considering standard Medicare as a better form of insurance coverage. In addition, patients should also enroll in Medicare Part D to get prescription drug coverage; buy a supplemental MediGap policy; and buy additional coverage for hearing, vision, and dental care. Although this is a more complicated process, it is also a better one until Medicare Advantage revises its plans to address the current issues facing Americans on such plans who have serious illnesses.

Oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (ASCERTAIN): a registrational, randomised, crossover, pharmacokinetics, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The DNA methyltransferase inhibitors azacitidine and decitabine for individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are available in parenteral form. Oral therapy with similar exposure for these diseases would offer potential treatment benefits. We aimed to compare the safety and pharmacokinetics of oral decitabine plus the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine. METHODS: We did a registrational, multicentre, open-label, crossover, phase 3 trial of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and individuals with acute myeloid leukaemia, enrolled as separate cohorts; results for only participants with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are reported here. In 37 academic and community-based clinics in Canada and the USA, we enrolled individuals aged 18 years or older who were candidates to receive intravenous decitabine, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 and a life expectancy of at least 3 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 5 days of oral decitabine-cedazuridine (one tablet once daily containing 35 mg decitabine and 100 mg cedazuridine as a fixed-dose combination) or intravenous decitabine (20 mg/m2 per day by continuous 1-h intravenous infusion) in a 28-day treatment cycle, followed by 5 days of the other formulation in the next treatment cycle. Thereafter, all participants received oral decitabine-cedazuridine from the third cycle on until treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was total decitabine exposure over 5 days with oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for cycles 1 and 2, measured as area under the curve in participants who received the full treatment dose in cycles 1 and 2 and had decitabine daily AUC0-24 for both oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine (ie, paired cycles). On completion of the study, all patients were rolled over to a maintenance study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03306264. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2018, and June 7, 2021, 173 individuals were screened, 138 (80%) participants were randomly assigned to a treatment sequence, and 133 (96%) participants (87 [65%] men and 46 [35%] women; 121 [91%] White, four [3%] Black or African-American, three [2%] Asian, and five [4%] not reported) received treatment. Median follow-up was 966 days (IQR 917-1050). Primary endpoint of total exposure of oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine was 98·93% (90% CI 92·66-105·60), indicating equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure on the basis of area under the curve. The safety profiles of oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine were similar. The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or worse were thrombocytopenia (81 [61%] of 133 participants), neutropenia (76 [57%] participants), and anaemia (67 [50%] participants). The incidence of serious adverse events in cycles 1-2 was 31% (40 of 130 participants) with oral decitabine-cedazuridine and 18% (24 of 132 participants) with intravenous decitabine. There were five treatment-related deaths; two deemed related to oral therapy (sepsis and pneumonia) and three to intravenous treatment (septic shock [n=2] and pneumonia [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Oral decitabine-cedazuridine was pharmacologically and pharmacodynamically equivalent to intravenous decitabine. The results support use of oral decitabine-cedazuridine as a safe and effective alternative to intravenous decitabine for treatment of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals.

When to use which molecular prognostic scoring system in the management of patients with MDS?

Myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) are a heterogeneous group of hematopoietic cancers characterized by recurrent molecular alterations driving the disease pathogenesis with a variable propensity for progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Clinical decision making for MDS relies on appropriate risk stratification at diagnosis, with higher-risk patients requiring more intensive therapy. The conventional clinical prognostic systems including the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and its revised version (IPSS-R) have dominated the risk stratification of MDS from 1997 until 2022. Concurrently, the use of next-generation sequencing has revolutionized the field by revealing multiple recurrent genetic mutations, which correlate with phenotype and prognosis. Significant efforts have been made to formally incorporate molecular data into prognostic tools to improve proper risk identification and personalize treatment strategies. In this review, we will critically compare the available molecular scoring systems for MDS focusing on areas of progress and potential limitations that can be improved in subsequent revisions of these tools.

Are We Ready For "Triplet" Therapy in Higher-Risk MDS?

Higher-risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes/Neoplasms (MDS) represent an ongoing therapeutic challenge, with few effective therapies, many of which may have limited use in this older patient population often with considerations around comorbidities. Outside of transplant, azacitidine and decitabine remain the only disease-modifying therapies, and are palliative in nature. Recent interest has grown in extending combination chemotherapies used to treat acute myeloid leukemia (AML) to patients with MDS, including novel combination chemotherapy "doublets" and "triplets." In this review, we discuss considerations around combination chemotherapy in MDS, specifically as relates to study design, appropriate endpoints, supportive considerations, and how to integrate these into the current treatment paradigm. New therapies in MDS are desperately needed but also require considerations particular to this unique patient population.

Treatment Considerations of Myelodysplastic Syndromes/Neoplasms for Pathologists.

The diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) has evolved over the years with the incorporation of genetic abnormalities to establish a diagnosis, their impact on risk stratification, prognostication, and therapeutic options. Hematopathologists are the cornerstone to establish an accurate diagnosis and ensure patients receive the best available treatment option. Hematopathologists and clinicians must work closely together to establish the best disease subclassification, by combining pathologic findings with the clinical presentation. This will ensure patients receive the best therapeutic approach by better understanding the disease entity. In this review, we discuss how we approach a bone marrow biopsy report in the management of MDS.