Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ
Yael Kusne , Alyssa McGary , Katalin Kelemen , Mark Robert Litzow , Aref Al-Kali , James M. Foran , Talha Badar , Mrinal S Patnaik , Abhishek A Mangaonkar , Lisa Ostrosky Sproat , Jeanne M. Palmer , Patricia T. Greipp , Cecilia Ysabel Arana Yi
Background: MECOM (EVI1) rearrangements in MDS/AML are rare and carry an unfavorable prognosis. Although allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) may prolong survival, factors impacting outcomes are not known. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with MECOM (EVI1) to associate clinicopathologic variables with prognosis. Methods: This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic IRB. Patients >18 years of age with MDS or AML and MECOM EVI1 at Mayo Clinic between 01/2012 and 12/2022 were included. Response was defined by ELN criteria. Intensive chemotherapy was defined as 7+3 or high dose cytarabine. Non-intensive chemotherapy included hypomethylating agents with or without venetoclax. Median overall survival (OS) and median leukemia free survival (LFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcome differences between sub-groups and univariate analyses were assessed with Cox regression. Results: Sixty patients met criteria for inclusion. Sixty-three percent (n = 38) were male and the median age at diagnosis was 67.8 yrs (range, 56 – 75). Eighty percent had AML (n = 48) and 18% had MDS (n = 11). Sixty-seven percent of patients had secondary AML/MDS (n = 40). Inv(3)/t(3;3) was present in 65% (n = 39) and t(3;21) was present in 12% (n = 7). Thirty-eight percent (n = 23) of patients had cooccurring monosomy 7 or 7q deletion and 5% had complex karyotype (n = 3). SF3B1 was the most common cooccurring mutation in 31% (n = 10), followed by KRAS in 19% (n = 6). Thirty-eight percent of patients (n = 23) received intensive chemotherapy. Complete response (CR) rates were 36% with intensive treatment (n = 8) and 4% with non-intensive treatment (n = 1; p = 0.007). Thirty percent (n = 18) underwent SCT (78% in CR1 and 22% in CR2) and of those, myeloablative conditioning (MAC) was used in 38% while 61% received reduced intensity conditioning (RIC). The mOS in the entire cohort was 11 months (95% CI 6.2, 17). Patients who received a SCT had longer mOS compared to patients who did not (19 vs 6.2 months, HR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.16,0.64; p = 0.001). AML-MRC was a poor prognostic factor in the HCST group for OS (HR = 4.23, 95% CI 1.02, 17.5, p = 0.047). Intensive vs. non-intensive chemotherapy, response prior to transplant (CR vs. no CR), or having 2 or more mutations on NGS did not significantly impact OS or LFS. Conclusions: In line with previous reports, allo-HSCT was associated with improved survival outcomes. Our results showed a high frequency of secondary AML/MDS, but only AML-MRC was associated with decreased survival outcomes. Regardless of therapy type, outcomes were poor. Novel therapies are urgently needed for these patients.
Disclaimer
This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org
Abstract Disclosures
2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Sameem M. Abedin
2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium
First Author: Kohei Shitara
2022 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Luis G. Paz-Ares
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Shereef Ahmed Elsamany