Lymphopenia at diagnosis is highly prevalent in myelodysplastic syndromes and has an independent negative prognostic value in IPSS-R-low-risk patients.

Lymphopenia is associated with an increased mortality in several medical conditions. Its prognostic impact in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) is less well studied. Hence, we analyzed 1023 patients from the Düsseldorf MDS-registry with regard to the absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) at diagnosis. An ALC below the median of the population (1.2 × 10 <sup>9</sup> /l) was associated with lower counts of neutrophils (median 1.35 vs. 1.92 × 10 <sup>9</sup> /l, p < 0.001) and platelets (median 100 vs. 138 × 10 <sup>9</sup> /l, p < 0.001) and with a significant lower overall survival in univariate analysis (whole cohort: median 36 vs. 46 months, p = 0.016; 721 patients without hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or induction chemotherapy: median 36 vs. 56 months, p = 0.001). For low-risk MDS according to IPSS-R, an ALC < 1.2 × 10 <sup>9</sup> /l was of additional prognostic value in a multivariate Cox regression model together with age (< or ≥65 years) and LDH (< or ≥normal value of 240 U/l; HR 1.46, 95% CI: 1.03-2.08, p = 0.033). These data support the hypothesis of subtle but clinical relevant changes of the adaptive immune system in MDS. Further studies are necessary to identify the ALC cut-off best suitable for prognostication and the mechanisms responsible for the impairment of lymphoid homeostasis in MDS

Analysis of the impact of adherence to guidelines and expert advice in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes.

The European Leukemia Net (ELN) guidelines for treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) connect heterogeneous MDS subgroups with a number of therapeutic options ranging from best supportive care to allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT). However, it is currently unknown whether adherence to guideline recommendations translates into improved survival. The sizeable database of the Duesseldorf MDS Registry allowed us to address this question. We first performed a retrospective analysis including 1698 patients (cohort 1) to whom we retrospectively applied the ELN guidelines. We compared patients treated according to the guidelines with patients who deviated from it, either because they received a certain treatment though it was not recommended or because they did not receive that treatment despite being eligible. We also performed a prospective study with 381 patients (cohort 2) who were seen in our department and received guideline-based expert advice. Again, we compared the impact of subsequent guideline-adherent versus non-adherent treatment. For the majority of treatment options (best supportive care, lenalidomide, hypomethylating agents, low-dose chemotherapy, and intensive chemotherapy), we found that adherence to the ELN guidelines did not improve survival in cohort 1. The same was true when patient management was prospectively enhanced through guideline-based treatment advice given by MDS experts (cohort 2). The only exceptions were alloSCT and iron chelation (ICT). Patients receiving ICT and alloSCT as recommended fared significantly better than those who were eligible but received other treatment. Our analysis underscores the limited survival impact of most MDS therapies and suggests to pursue alloSCT in all suitable candidates. Graphical abstract

Outcomes of patients with chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia treated with non-curative therapies: a retrospective cohort study

Background: Approval of hypomethylating agents in patients with chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia is based on trials done in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. We aimed to investigate whether hypomethylating agents provide a benefit in subgroups of patients with chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia compared with other treatments. Methods: For this retrospective cohort study, data were retrieved between Nov 30, 2017, and Jan 5, 2019, from 38 centres in the USA and Europe. We included non-selected, consecutive patients diagnosed with chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia, who received chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia-directed therapy. Patients with acute myeloid leukaemia according to 2016 WHO criteria at initial diagnosis (ie, ≥20% blasts in the bone marrow or peripheral blood) or with unavailability of treatment data were excluded. Outcomes assessed included overall survival, time to next treatment, and time to transformation to acute myeloid leukaemia. Analyses were adjusted by age, sex, platelet count, and Chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia-Specific Prognostic Scoring System (CPSS). Patients were grouped by first received treatment with either hydroxyurea, hypomethylating agents, or intensive chemotherapy, and stratified by risk according to blast count, French-American-British subtype, CPSS, WHO 2016 subtype, and the eligibility criteria of the DACOTA trial (NCT02214407). Findings: 949 patients diagnosed with chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia between April 13, 1981, and Oct 26, 2018, were included. Median follow-up was 23·4 months (IQR 11·5–42·3) from diagnosis and 16·2 months (6·6–31·6) from start of first-line treatment. 412 (43%) of 949 patients received hypomethylating agents as first treatment, 391 (41%) hydroxyurea, and 83 (9%) intensive chemotherapy. Adjusted median overall survival for patients treated with hydroxyurea versus hypomethylating agents was 15·6 months (95% CI 13·1–17·3) versus 20·7 months (17·9–23·4); hazard ratio (HR) 1·39 (1·17–1·65; p=0·0002) and 14·0 months (9·8–17·2) versus 20·7 months (17·9–23·4; HR 1·55 [1·16–2·05]; p=0·0027) for those treated with intensive chemotherapy versus hypomethylating agents. In patients with myeloproliferative chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (myeloproliferative CMML), median overall survival was 12·6 months (10·7–15·0) versus 17·6 months (14·8–21·5; HR 1·38 [1·12–1·70]; p=0·0027) for patients treated with hydroxyurea versus hypomethylating agents, and 12·3 months (8·4–16·6) versus 17·6 months (14·8–21·5; HR 1·44 [1·02–2·03]; p=0·040) for intensive chemotherapy versus hypomethylating agents. Hypomethylating agents did not confer an overall survival advantage for patients classified as having lower-risk disease (ie, myelodysplastic chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia with <10% blasts, CMML-0, or lower-risk CPSS). Interpretation: These data suggest hypomethylating agents as the preferred therapy for patients with higher-risk chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and those with myeloproliferative CMML. Our findings also suggest that CPSS is a valuable tool to identify patients who are most likely to benefit from hypomethylating agents. Further evidence from prospective cohorts would be desirable. Funding: The Austrian Group for Medical Tumor Therapy. © 2021 Elsevier Lt

Effects of the Therapeutic Armamentarium on Survival and Time to Next Treatment in CMML Subtypes: An International Analysis of 950 Cases Coordinated By the AGMT Study Group

Background Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) is an ultrarare stem cell disorder defined by the presence of monocytosis (≥1.0 G/l, ≥10%). Depending on white blood cell (WBC) count, CMML can be divided into a myelodysplastic (MD) (WBC ≤13 G/l) and a myeloproliferative (MP) variant (WBC >13 G/l). Although hypomethylating agents (HMA) have been shown to prolong overall survival (OS) in MDS patients (pts) in prospective, randomized phase III trials, only 6-14 MD-CMML pts were included, and MP-CMML pts were excluded [Silverman 2002; Kantarjian 2006; Fenaux 2009]. EMA approval of azacitidine (AZA) in CMML is thus based on limited experience and restricted to MD-CMML with 10-29% bone marrow blasts (BMB), whereas decitabine (DAC) is not approved for treatment (trt) of CMML in the EU. Smaller analyses and single-arm trials of HMA in CMML exist [Wijermans 2008; Ades 2013; Pleyer 2014; Zeidan 2017; Duchmann 2018; Santini 2018; Coston 2019; Diamantopoulos 2019], but it is still unclear whether HMA provide a benefit in CMML (subgroups) compared with other trts. Aim Evaluate the impact of HMA and hydroxyurea (HU) trt on OS and time to next trt (TTNT). Methods Data were collected from 7 European study groups and 2 US MDS Centers of Excellence; database lock 27.05.19; Assign Data Management and Biostatistics GmbH performed statistical analyses with SAS® 9.3. Of 1657 CMML pts, only those who received trt (n=950), with documented WBC and BMB at 1st line, were included in these analyses (n=845, cohort 1). Pts were stratified according to the EMA approved AZA indication, and inclusion/exclusion criteria of the GFM-DAC-CMML trial assessing DAC +/- HU vs HU (NCT02214407) (diagnosis of CMML, no prior trt [except supportive care, erythropoietin or ≤6 weeks HU], WBC ≥13 G/l and ≥2 of the following: BMB ≥5%, clonal cytogenetic abnormality [other than -Y], hemoglobin 16 G/l, platelet count 2 excluded) (n=486; cohort 2). Results In cohort 1, pts receiving HMA 1st line (n=375) had longer OS (19.8 vs 16.3 months [mo], P=0.0102) and TTNT (13.2 vs 6.7 mo, P=0.0001) than pts treated with non-HMA 1st line (n=470). Survival benefit was longer when comparing pts who received HMA (any time) (AZA [n=442], DAC [n=37], both [n=27]) with those that never received HMA (never HMA; n=339) (23.0 vs 13.0 mo, P<0.0001). Median OS was longer for MD-CMML (n=294) vs MP-CMML pts (n=551) (25.5 vs 15.0 mo, P<0.0001). OS was shorter for all pts with 1st line HU preceding any 2nd line trt (9.4 vs 19.6 mo; P<0.0001; Fig A), for MP-CMML pts separately (8.7 vs 15.6 mo, P=0.0001), and for the subset with HU preceding 2nd line HMA (11.6 vs 19.8 mo; P=0.0016; Fig B). The following were significantly less common in pts treated with HMA vs those that were not: diagnosis in the pre-HMA era (8 vs 43%), MP-CMML (48 vs 66%), splenomegaly (27 vs 36%), ECOG≥2 (12 vs 24%), 1 trt line (43 vs 74%). WHO subtype, karyotype, transfusion dependence, LDH, CPSS score, AML transformation and therapy-related CMML were comparable between cohorts. HMA are not approved in the EU for CMML pts with <10% BMB. In this subgroup (n=588), median OS was longer for MD-CMML vs MP-CMML (28.1 vs 17.0 mo, P<0.0001) and for pts who received HMA vs never HMA (26.5 vs 14.8 mo, P=0.0003). Pts with <10% BMB and MD-CMML (n=206) did not seem to benefit from HMA vs non-HMA trt (median OS 28.4 vs 25.3 mo, P=0.9908; Fig C), whereas the MP-CMML subgroup (n=382) did (24.4 vs 13.0 mo, P<0.0001; Fig D). HMA are also unapproved in the EU for MP-CMML pts with ≥10% BMB. In pts with ≥10% BMB (n=257), median OS was longer for MD-CMML vs MP-CMML (19.4 vs 11.2 mo, P=0.0023) and for pts who received HMA vs never HMA (18.3 vs 7.0 mo, P<0.0001). Both MD-CMML (OS 21.7 vs 10.9 mo, p=0.0134; Fig E) and MP-CMML pts (15.6 vs 6.3 mo, P<0.0001; Fig F) benefited from HMA trt vs never HMA. In cohort 2, 1st line trts were HU (n=214), HMA (n=187) and others (n=85). Comparing HMA vs HU 1st line, median OS was 15.6 vs 14.5 mo (P=0.0307) and median TTNT was 8.8 vs 6.5 mo (P=0.0452; Fig G). OS and TTNT were comparable for HU vs other trts (Fig G). Similar observations were made in the larger cohort 1 (Fig H). Conclusions HMA show promising results with survival benefits of +11.4, +10.8 and +9.3 mo in pts with MP-CMML <10%, and MD- or MP-CMML ≥10% BMB. In MP-CMML pts fulfilling GFM-DAC-CMML trial inclusion criteria, survival and TTNT were longest in pts receiving HMA 1st line as compared to HU or other trts. Preceding HU portends poor prognosis (-10.2 mo). Disclosures Pleyer: Abbvie: Other: Advisory board; Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Inflection Point Biomedical Advisors: Other: Advisory board; Celgene: Other: Advisory board; Agios: Other: Advisory board. Leisch:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Other: Travel support. Maciejewski:Alexion: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Kaivers:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel Support. Heibl:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Geissler:Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AOP: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Ratiopharm: Honoraria. Valent:Blueprint: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Deciphera: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Medina de Almeida:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Jerez:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria. Germing:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Sekeres:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. List:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Symeonidis:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Tekeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sanz:AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Helsinn Healthcare: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hoffman - La Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen - Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onconova: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Greil:Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/accomodation expenses, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/accomodation expenses, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/accomodation expenses, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Azacitidine is not approved for the treatment of MP-CMML or CMML with <10% BM blasts, decitabine is not approved for treatment of CMML in the EU, hydroxyurea is not approved for the treatment of CMML in the EU

Outcome of Lower-Risk Patients With Myelodysplastic Syndromes Without 5q Deletion After Failure of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents

Purpose Most anemic patients with non-deleted 5q lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are treated with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), with a response rate of approximately 50%. Second-line treatments, including hypomethylating agents (HMAs), lenalidomide (LEN), and investigational drugs, may be used after ESA failure in some countries, but their effect on disease progression and overall survival (OS) is unknown. Here, we analyzed outcome after ESA failure and the effect of second-line treatments. Patients and Methods We examined an international retrospective cohort of 1,698 patients with non-del(5q) lower-risk MDS treated with ESAs. Results Erythroid response to ESAs was 61.5%, and median response duration was 17 months. Of 1,147 patients experiencing ESA failure, 653 experienced primary failure and 494 experienced relapse after a response. Primary failure of ESAs was associated with a higher risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) progression, which did not translate into an OS difference. Of 450 patients (39%) who received second-line treatment, 194 received HMAs, 148 received LEN, and 108 received other treatments (MISC), whereas 697 received RBC transfusions only. Five-year AML cumulative incidence was 20.3%, 20.3%, and 11.3% for those receiving HMAs, LEN, and MISC, respectively ( P = .05). Five-year OS for patients receiving HMA, LEN, and MISC was 36.5%, 41.7%, and 51%, respectively ( P = .21). In a multivariable analysis adjusted for age, sex, revised International Prognostic Scoring System score, and progression at ESA failure, there was no significant OS difference among the three groups. Conclusion In this large, multicenter, retrospective cohort of patients with non-del(5q) lower-risk MDS treated with ESAs, none of the most commonly used second-line treatments (HMA and LEN) significantly improved OS. Early failure of ESAs was associated with a higher risk of AML progression