Abstract
Background:
Hypomethylating agents (HMA) are well established standard of care for patients (pts) with higher-risk MDS (HR-MDS). However, approximately half of the pts do not respond to HMA therapy and most of the responders eventually lose response (HMA failure). There is no standard of care for pts after HMA failure and median overall survival (OS) post HMA failure is around 6 months (Jabbour et al. 2015).
While the mutational landscapes and their role in prognosis are increasingly becoming apparent in pts with HR-MDS at diagnosis, mutational profiles at the time of HMA failure and their impact on clinical outcomes are not well understood. Here, using samples collected from a global Phase 3 trial randomizing HR-MDS pts post HMA failure to I.V. rigosertib (RGS) or physician's choice (PC) (INSPIRE: NCT02562443), we analyzed the landscape of driver mutations in HR-MDS after HMA failure and investigated the association with the clinical outcomes. Since RGS is a non-ATP-competitive small molecule RAS mimetic (Athuluri-Divakar 2016), the study also offered an opportunity to test the hypothesis whether HR-MDS pts with oncogenic RAS pathway mutations benefit from RGS.
Methods:
HR-MDS pts after HMA failure were randomized 2:1 to RGS or PC. All pts failed to respond to or progressed on prior HMA therapy. Bone marrow samples or peripheral blood samples were collected at the time of trial screening. Genomic DNA was sequenced by the targeted capture deep sequencing of 295 genes (median 500x).
Results:
372 pts were enrolled in INSPIRE trial (248 to RGS and 124 to PC). The median age of the trial participants was 73 (range: 40-85). All pts were previously treated and with an HMA with the median duration of prior HMA therapy of 6.7 months. 64% and 28% of the pts were classified as IPSS-R very high risk or high risk, respectively, at the time of randomization.
Among the 372 participants, DNA sequencing of pre-treatment samples was performed in 188 pts (51% of the participants, N = 122 in RGS arm, N = 66 in PC arm). The most frequently identified driver mutations involved ASXL1 (36%) followed by RUNX1 (24%), TET2 (23%), STAG2 (22%) and TP53 (21%). Mutations in splicing pathway genes were found in 36% of the pts. Oncogenic RAS pathway mutations were detected in 15% of the pts (NRAS = 3 %, KRAS = 2%, CBL = 4%, NF1 = 5%, PTPN11 = 3%, and 1% had multi-hit mutations). Compared to the previously untreated MDS pts (N = 446, Papaemmanuil et al. Blood 2013), mutations in ASXL1 (36% vs. 18%, P < 0.0001), BCOR (9% vs. 3%, P = 0.002), CEBPA (4% vs. 0.2%, P = 0.001), NF1 (5% vs. 0.9%, P = 0.003), RUNX1 (25% vs. 11%, P < 0.0001), STAG2 (22% vs. 5%, P < 0.0001), TP53 (21% vs. 6%, P < 0.0001), and IDH1/2 (13% vs. 7%, P =0.016) were significantly more enriched in pts with HMA failure, whereas mutations in SF3B1 (7% vs. 37%, P < 0.0001), TET2 (23% vs. 35%, P = 0.006), and splicing pathway genes (36% vs. 68%, P < 0.0001) were significantly less frequent in HMA failure pts. These results are consistent with the high-risk profiles of HMA failure pts. Frequency of oncogenic RAS pathway mutations were similar between HMA failure and previously untreated MDS pts (15% vs. 13%, P = 0.612). Correlation analysis between the types of HMA failure and gene mutations showed that TP53 mutations were significantly enriched in pts who relapsed after initial response to HMA (P = 0.001), whereas oncogenic RAS pathway mutations were significantly enriched in pts who progressed during the HMA therapy (P = 0.03).
Overall, RGS did not significantly improve the overall survival (OS) of HMA failure pts compared to PC. Survival difference between RGS arm and PC arm was not observed in any subgroups stratified by the gene mutations. The only subgroup that showed improved OS with RGS compared to PC was pts with RAEB-t (median OS 7.5 vs. 3.9 months, P = 0.049). Of note, among pts with oncogenic RAS pathway mutations, no survival difference was observed between RGS and PC arms.
Conclusion:
High-risk gene mutations, such as TP53, ASXL1, RUNX1, and STAG2 (Ogawa. Blood 2019). were significantly enriched in MDS pts with HMA failure, suggesting their role in HMA resistance and disease progression. Identifying the mutations present de novo and with HMA failure offers the opportunity to determine prognosis based on these mutations as well as potential strategies to target these mutations with new medical entities.
Disclosures
Takahashi: GSK: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Symbio Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Luger: Syros: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Brystol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Other: Research support to institution. Diez-Campelo: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.
OffLabel Disclosure:
Rigosertib for MDS patients after HMA failure
Optical Mapping Uncovers Multiple Novel Genomic Structural Variants in Patient Leukemias