Developmental trajectories and cooperating genomic events define molecular subtypes of BCR::ABL1-positive ALL.

ABSTRACT: Distinct diagnostic entities within BCR::ABL1-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are currently defined by the International Consensus Classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias (ICC): "lymphoid only", with BCR::ABL1 observed exclusively in lymphatic precursors, vs "multilineage", where BCR::ABL1 is also present in other hematopoietic lineages. Here, we analyzed transcriptomes of 327 BCR::ABL1-positive patients with ALL (age, 2-84 years; median, 46 years) and identified 2 main gene expression clusters reproducible across 4 independent patient cohorts. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis of fluorescence-activated cell-sorted hematopoietic compartments showed distinct BCR::ABL1 involvement in myeloid cells for these clusters (n = 18/18 vs n = 3/16 patients; P < .001), indicating that a multilineage or lymphoid BCR::ABL1 subtype can be inferred from gene expression. Further subclusters grouped samples according to cooperating genomic events (multilineage: HBS1L deletion or monosomy 7; lymphoid: IKZF1-/- or CDKN2A/PAX5 deletions/hyperdiploidy). A novel HSB1L transcript was highly specific for BCR::ABL1 multilineage cases independent of HBS1L genomic aberrations. Treatment on current German Multicenter Study Group for Adult ALL (GMALL) protocols resulted in comparable disease-free survival (DFS) for multilineage vs lymphoid cluster patients (3-year DFS: 70% vs 61%; P = .530; n = 91). However, the IKZF1-/- enriched lymphoid subcluster was associated with inferior DFS, whereas hyperdiploid cases showed a superior outcome. Thus, gene expression clusters define underlying developmental trajectories and distinct patterns of cooperating events in BCR::ABL1-positive ALL with prognostic relevance.

Time from diagnosis to treatment has no impact on survival in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia treated with venetoclax-based regimens.

In newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), immediate initiation of treatment is standard of care. However, deferral of antileukemic therapy may be indicated to assess comorbidities or pretherapeutic risk factors. We explored the impact of time from diagnosis to treatment on outcomes in newly diagnosed AML undergoing venetoclax-based therapy in two distinct cohorts. By querying the Study Alliance Leukemia database and the global health network TriNetX, we identified 138 and 717 patients respectively with an average age of 76 and 72 years who received venetoclax-based first-line therapy. When comparing patients who started treatment earlier or later than 10 days after initial diagnosis, no significant difference in median overall survival was observed - neither in the SAL cohort (7.7 vs. 9.6 months; P=0.42) nor in the TriNetX cohort (7.5 vs. 7.2 months; P=0.41). Similarly, severe infections, bleeding, and thromboembolic events were equally observed between early and later treatments, both in the overall patient groups and specific subgroups (age ≥75 years or leukocytes ≥20x109/L). This retrospective analysis indicates that delaying the start of venetoclax-based therapy in newly diagnosed AML might be a safe option for selected patients, provided that close clinical monitoring is performed.

Real-world effectiveness of first-line azacitidine or decitabine with or without venetoclax in acute myeloid leukemia patients unfit for intensive therapy.

BACKGROUND: First-line treatment in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) unfit for intensive therapy is the combination of a hypomethylating agent (HMA) with venetoclax (VEN). However, retrospective data confirming the benefits of this regimen outside of clinical trials have shown conflicting results. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of outcomes with first-line HMA-VEN versus HMA in AML patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 213 patients were included from three German hospitals (125 HMA-VEN, 88 HMA). Median overall survival in the HMA-VEN cohort was 7.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1-14.7) versus 4.9 months (3.1-7.1) with HMA. After 1 year, 42% (95% CI, 33-54) and 19% (12-30) of patients were alive, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.88). After adjusting for clinical and molecular baseline characteristics, treatment with HMA-VEN remained significantly associated with both prolonged survival (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29-0.77) and time to next treatment (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.85). Patients who achieved recovery of peripheral blood counts had a favorable prognosis (HR for death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.84). DISCUSSION: These data align with findings from the pivotal VIALE-A trial and support the use of HMA-VEN in patients unfit for intensive therapy.

Remission induction versus immediate allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for patients with relapsed or poor responsive acute myeloid leukaemia (ASAP): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether high-dose cytarabine-based salvage chemotherapy, administered to induce complete remission in patients with poor responsive or relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia scheduled for allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) after intensive conditioning confers a survival advantage, is unclear. METHODS: To test salvage chemotherapy before allogeneic HSCT, patients aged between 18 and 75 years with non-favourable-risk acute myeloid leukaemia not in complete remission after first induction or untreated first relapse were randomly assigned 1:1 to remission induction with high-dose cytarabine (3 g/m2 intravenously, 1 g/m2 intravenously for patients >60 years or with a substantial comorbidity) twice daily on days 1-3 plus mitoxantrone (10 mg/m2 intravenously) on days 3-5 or immediate allogeneic HSCT for the disease control group. Block randomisation with variable block lengths was used and patients were stratified by age, acute myeloid leukaemia risk, and disease status. The study was open label. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as complete remission on day 56 after allogeneic HSCT, with the aim to show non-inferiority for disease control compared with remission induction with a non-inferiority-margin of 5% and one-sided type 1 error of 2·5%. The primary endpoint was analysed in both the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in the per-protocol population. The trial is completed and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02461537. FINDINGS: 281 patients were enrolled between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 12, 2022. Of 140 patients randomly assigned to disease control, 135 (96%) proceeded to allogeneic HSCT, 97 (69%) after watchful waiting only. Of 141 patients randomly assigned to remission induction, 134 (95%) received salvage chemotherapy and 128 (91%) patients subsequently proceeded to allogeneic HSCT. In the ITT population, treatment success was observed in 116 (83%) of 140 patients in the disease control group versus 112 (79%) of 141 patients with remission induction (test for non-inferiority, p=0·036). Among per-protocol treated patients, treatment success was observed in 116 (84%) of 138 patients with disease control versus 109 (81%) of 134 patients in the remission induction group (test for non-inferiority, p=0·047). The difference in treatment success between disease control and remission induction was estimated as 3·4% (95% CI -5·8 to 12·6) for the ITT population and 2·7% (-6·3 to 11·8) for the per-protocol population. Fewer patients with disease control compared with remission induction had non-haematological adverse events grade 3 or worse (30 [21%] of 140 patients vs 86 [61%] of 141 patients, χ2 test p<0·0001). Between randomisation and the start of conditioning, with disease control two patients died from progressive acute myeloid leukaemia and zero from treatment-related complications, and with remission induction two patients died from progressive acute myeloid leukaemia and two from treatment-related complications. Between randomisation and allogeneic HSCT, patients with disease control spent a median of 27 days less in hospital than those with remission induction, ie, the median time in hospital was 15 days (range 7-64) versus 42 days (27-121, U test p<0·0001), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Non-inferiority of disease control could not be shown at the 2·5% significance level. The rate of treatment success was also not statistically better for patients with remission induction. Watchful waiting and immediate transplantation could be an alternative for fit patients with poor response or relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia who have a stem cell donor available. More randomised controlled intention-to-transplant trials are needed to define the optimal treatment before transplantation for patients with active acute myeloid leukaemia. FUNDING: DKMS and the Gert and Susanna Mayer Stiftung Foundation.