"Proliferative" Versus "Dysplastic" Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia: Molecular and Prognostic Correlates

Background : The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myeloid neoplasms has recommended distinction between "proliferative" (WBC ≥ 13 x 10(9)/L) and "dysplastic" (WBC < 13 X 10(9)/L) subtypes of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). In the current study of 261 molecularly-annotated cases, we sought to clarify the prognostic relevance of distinguishing proliferative from dysplastic CMML and also describe differences in the distribution of disease-associated mutations. Methods : 261 patients with WHO-defined CMML were included in the study. All patients had bone marrow (BM) biopsies and cytogenetics performed at diagnosis. Targeted capture assays were carried out on BM DNA specimens obtained at diagnosis for the following genes; TET2, DNMT3A, IDH1, IDH2, ASXL1, EZH2, SUZ12, SRSF2, SF3B1, ZRSR2, U2AF1, PTPN11, Tp53, SH2B3, RUNX1, CBL, NRAS, KRAS, JAK2, CSF3R, FLT3, KIT, CALR, MPL, NPM1, CEBPA, IKZF, and SETBP. The 2016 WHO criteria were used to sub-classify CMML into proliferative and dysplastic subtypes. Results :Among the 261 study patients, 65% were males and median age was 70 years. 154 (59%), 64 (25%) and 43 (16%) patients were classified as CMML-0, 1 and 2, respectively. At a median follow-up of 23 months, 174 (67%) deaths and 37 (14%) leukemic transformations were documented. Mutational frequencies were; TET2 45%, ASXL1 45%, SRSF2 40%, NRAS 14%, SETBP1 13%, CBL 10%, JAK2 7%, RUNX1 6%, U2AF1 6%, DNMT3A 6%, SF3B1 5%, ZRSR2 4%, Tp53 4%, IDH2 4%, KRAS 3%, PTPN11 2%, SH2B3 1%, CSF3R 1%, IDH1 1%, EZH2 1%, SUZ12 1%, KIT 1%, FLT3 1%, and CALR 1%. Risk stratification was based on the Mayo Molecular Model: 31% high, 30% intermediate-1, 28% intermediate-2 and 11 % low risk. i) Dysplastic versus proliferative CMML: phenotypic and molecular differences 139 (53%) patients had proliferative and 122 (47%) dysplastic subtypes. There was no difference between the CMML subtypes in terms of age and gender distribution, hemoglobin level, platelet count or BM blast content. Patients with proliferative CMML had higher absolute monocyte counts (AMC) (p<0.0001), circulating immature myeloid cells (IMC, p<0.001), circulating blasts (p<0.001) and serum LDH levels (p=0.01). The following gene mutations were more common in proliferative vs dysplastic CMML: ASXL1 (54% vs 37%, p=0.009), JAK2 (11% vs 3%, p=0.01) and CBL (11% vs 8%, p=0.047); SF3B1 mutations were more common in dysplastic CMML (8% vs 1%, p=0.02). There was no difference in the incidence of TET2, DNMT3A and SRSF2 mutations whereas there was a trend towards a higher prevalence of NRAS (p=0.06) and CSF3R (p=0.06) mutations in proliferative CMML. Cytogenetic abnormalities (p=0.03), including higher risk categories by the Spanish (p=0.03) and the Mayo-French (p=0.01) systems were more common in proliferative CMML. ii) Impact on overall and leukemia-free survival: Median survival for the entire cohort (n=261) was 24 months. In univariate analysis, survival was shorter in patients with proliferative (median 20 months) versus dysplastic (median 29 months) CMML (p=0.008; HR1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1; Figure 1A). Other variables of significance, in univariate analysis, included hemoglobin (p=0.001), leukocyte count (p=0.001), AMC (p=0.003), PB blast % (p=0.003), IMC (p=0.01), BM blast % (p=0.045), abnormal karyotype (p=0.02), ASXL1 (p=0.01) and DNMT3A (p=0.0003) mutations. In multivariable analysis, the difference in survival between proliferative and dysplastic subtypes remained significant with the addition of hemoglobin level (p=0.01), PB blast % (p=0.02), IMC (p=0.04), BM blast % (p=0.01) or DNMT3A mutations (p=0.01). This was, however, not the case with addition of leukocyte count (p=0.32), AMC (p=0.18) or ASXL1 mutational status (p=0.14); whereas the adverse impact on survival from the latter three parameters remained significant. The prognostic impact of ASXL1 mutations was most apparent in dysplastic CMML (Figure 1B). There was no difference in leukemic transformation rates (p=0.4). Conclusions: In the context of current prognostic models, sub-classification of CMML into proliferative and dysplastic subtypes might not provide additional prognostic value. The apparent difference in survival between the two subtypes of CMML is probably accounted for by the higher prevalence of leukocytosis/monocytosis and of ASXL1 mutations in proliferative CMML. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Gene Expression Profiling Identifies Distinct Signatures for Dysplastic and Proliferative Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia

Background : The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms has recommended distinction between "proliferative" (WBC ≥ 13 x 10(9)/L) and "dysplastic" (WBC < 13 X 10(9)/L) subtypes of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). In addition, CMML is characterized by a spectrum of cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities (Patnaik Leukemia 2014). In the current study, we looked for correlations between gene expression profiles (GEP) and morphologic or molecular categories of previously untreated patients with CMML. Methods : 35 patients with CMML were included in the study. Targeted capture assays were carried out on BM DNA specimens obtained at diagnosis for 28 myeloid-relevant genes (Patnaik Blood C. J.). RNA sequencing (Stranded Total RNA- Illumina, San Diego, CA), was performed on 9 normal BM controls, and 35 CMML samples (25 peripheral blood (PB) and 10 BM). The RNA-Seq data was analyzed using MAPRSeq v.2.0. Normalization and differential expression analysis was performed using edgeR 2.6.2. We selected genes that were differentially expressed with a False Discovery Rate (FDR) <0.1 and a fold change bigger than 2. Pathway enrichment analysis was performed using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA). Results: Among the 35 study patients, 75% were males and median age was 71 years (range, 55-87). 21 (60%), 9 (25%) and 5 (15%) patients were classified as CMML-0, 1 and 2, respectively. 16 (45%) had a dysplastic while 19 (55%) had a proliferative phenotype. At a median follow-up of 16 months, 5 (14%) deaths and 4 (14%) leukemic transformations were documented. Mutational frequencies included; TET2 45%, ASXL1 45%, SRSF2 40%, NRAS 14%, SETBP1 13%, CBL 10%, JAK2 7%, RUNX1 6%, DNMT3A 6%, U2AF1 6%, SF3B1 5%, ZRSR2 4%, Tp53 4%, and IDH2 4%. Abnormal cytogenetics (n=9, 35%) included; -Y 8%, trisomy 8 6%, monosomy 7 3%, del(13q) 3% and monosomal karyotype 3%. i) Differential GEP in PB samples: 25 PB CMML samples were analyzed. Unsupervised GEP demonstrated two unique clusters (figure one); cluster one was enriched with dysplastic CMML (90%) and cluster two with proliferative CMML (64%). Consistent with the difference in the distribution of morphologic categories, in comparison to cluster one, patients in cluster two had a higher white blood count (p=0.003), higher monocyte count (p=0.02) and higher risk prognostication by the Mayo Model (p=0.016); there was no significant difference between the two clusters in terms of age and gender distribution, hemoglobin level, neutrophil and platelet counts, PB or BM blast content, cytogenetic risk stratification, ASXL1, TET2, RAS, CBL and SETBP1 mutational status. Genes significantly upregulated (FDR<1e-5 and fold change ≥ 16x); in cluster two (proliferative CMML) in comparison to cluster one included; PRG2, CTSG, BEX1, CD34, CRISP2, while those significantly down-regulated included (FDR<1e-15 and fold change ≥ 5x); IL2RB, PRF1, GNLY, PDGFRB. IPA analysis identified the following pathways preferentially expressed in cluster two (proliferative CMML) 1) mitotic roles of polo-like kinase (KIF23, WEE-1, PLK1, PLK4), 2) Cell cycle: G2/M checkpoint regulation (CDC25C, WEE-1, AURKA, CDK1), 3) Cell cycle: chromosomal replication (CDC45, RPA3, MCM2, CDC7), and 4) BRCA1 in DNA damage response (BARD1, RBBP8, PLK1, RAD51). Whereas in the cluster one (dysplastic CMML), preferentially expressed pathways included; 1) T-cell receptor signalling (CD247 PRKCQ, CD4, PLCG1, CD28) and 2) STAT3 signalling (SOCS3, MAP3K9). ii) Differential GEP in BM samples: 10 BM CMML samples were analyzed along with 10 normal controls. Samples and controls clustered separately and within the CMML samples two clusters were identified (figure two). These clusters had equal representations of dysplastic (n=5) and proliferative (n=5) CMML sub-types. Additional samples are being processed. Conclusions: Differential gene expression profiling in patients with CMML identifies two unique clusters, clinically demarcated, at least in PB samples, by "proliferative" and "dysplastic" CMML subtypes. The proliferative cluster is enriched in genes involved in cell cycle regulation and DNA damage response; whereas the dysplastic cluster is enriched in T-cell receptor and STAT3 signalling. The prognostic and therapeutic impact of these gene clusters remains to be assessed in a larger group of informative patients. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Decitabine In Advanced Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia

Decitabine is a pyrimidine nucleoside analogue of cytidine and with azacytidine has been approved for treatment of MDS and non-proliferative CMML. Anyhow, few CMML cases were included in the registrative studies and CMML treatment still remains very arduous, being CMML an heterogenous disease by itself, with characteristics of both MDS and MPN and with a variable prognosis. Decitabine has been suggested to be particularly effective in CMML in a few studies. We evaluated efficacy and safety of decitabine 20mg/m2/day for 5 days every 28 days for a minimum of 6 cycles in a group of pretreated CMML patients. Evaluation of response was performed after 4 and 6 cycles of therapy, according to IWG 2006 criteria. Morphological diagnosis, evaluation of dysplastic signs and monocytic component was performed centrally after first on-site diagnosis. The mononuclear cell expression of decitabine metabolizing enzymes CDA, hENT1, DCK, and CN-II was determined. Between April 2010 and October 2011, 44 patients were enrolled from 15 Italian Hematology centers, 43 had a confirmed centralized diagnosis of CMML (M/F 30/13), and 42 were finally evaluable. According to WHO 27/42 pts were classified CMML-I with organomegaly and 15/42 CMML-II. Among these patients, 46% had received previous therapy. Proliferative CMML was diagnosed in 32/42 cases. Median age was 71 (42-84) yrs, median number of cycles 6 (1-28). Eleven patients received < 4 cycles, 16 from 4 to 6 cycles and 15 > 6 cycles. Eighty one percent of patients with CMML-I received > 4 cycles. All cycles were administered in an out-patient basis. Overall response rate (ORR) was 33%, mCR in 19%, CR in 14.3 %, PR 2.3% and SD in 34.9% and at 3 year-observation time 31% of patients are still alive (13/42). Median duration of response was 9 months. At present, 16.3% (7/42) of patients are still in treatment. Splenomegaly was significantly reduced in 28% of cases. No significative difference in response rate was present in CMML I vs CMML II, nor in proliferative CMML vs dysplastic ones. At analysis of karyotype, 57% of cases had no cytogenetic abnormality and there was no difference in RR between normal and abnormal cases, among which only 5% had complex karyotype. Median OS is 19 months (2-39). For CMML I cases OS is 26 months vs 15 months for CMML II (p<0.05). Responding patients (14/42) had a significantly longer OS : 39 vs 16 months (p< 0.05)(Figure 1). Interruption of therapy with decitabine was mainly due to progressive disease (52% of drop-out cases), death (9%) and in 7% of the cases to toxicity of the drug. Grade 3/4 toxicity was in the majority of cases hematological, and present all over treatment courses. In 7/42 patients severe infections occurred, and 1/42 had grade 3/4 cardiac and gastrointestinal toxicities respectively. Conclusions CMML patients even when heavily pretreated, can be responsive to decitabine which can be administered for several cycles with good tolerability. Our data are confirming reported data on ORR and OS after decitabine therapy (Braun et al Blood 2011). OS of decitabine- responding patients is significantly prolonged. No clinical or cytogenetic characteristics seem to be predictive of response to decitabine. No significant difference in enzyme expression was demonstrated, although a trend in lower expression of hENT1 was noted for non responsive cases. Disclosures: Santini: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen : Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; gsk: Honoraria.