Sabatolimab

Management of patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes after failure of hypomethylating agents: What is on the horizon?
Jan Philipp Bewersdorf, Amer M. Zeidan *
Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Hematology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords: Hypomethylating agent Myelodysplastic syndrome MDS
Novel agents HMA failure
A B S T R A C T

The hypomethylating agents (HMA) azacitidine (AZA) and decitabine (DAC) are the standard of care for frontline treatment of patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). As complete responses to HMAs are rare and typically not durable, HMA failure is a common clinical dilemma and associated with very short survival in most patients. Salvage therapies with various agents such as novel HMAs (guadecitabine, CC-486), and CTLA-4/PD1-type immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) have yielded mixed and only modest results at best in MDS patients with HMA failure. Thanks to advances in the understanding of the molecular and biologic pathogenesis of MDS, several novel targeted agents such as the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax, TP-53 refolding agent APR-246, IDH1/2 inhibitors, and novel ICPIs such as magrolimab and sabatolimab have been developed and demonstrated activity in combination with HMA in the frontline setting. However, clinical testing of these agents post HMA failure has been limited to date. Furthermore, the biology of HMA failure remains poorly defined which significantly limits rationale drug devel- opment. This highlights the importance of optimization of frontline therapy to avoid/delay HMA failure in addition to development of more effective salvage therapies.

⦁ Introduction
The hypomethylating agents (HMA) azacitidine and decitabine remain the mainstay of frontline treatment for patients with higher-
risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS) in both the United States and Europe with azacitidine (AZA) being the only agent that has shown an overall survival (OS) advantage in randomized clinical trials in this setting [1–3]. Overall response rates (ORR) with AZA in clinical trials ranged from 25 to 40% with a 9.5 month OS benefit in the MDS AZA-001 trial [1,4,5]. However, responses to HMA are generally transient and disease progression is rather a matter of time [6]. Additionally, the impressive results from the AZA-001 trial appear to be less pronounced in several real-world registry studies with median OS ranging from 10 to 13 months [7,8]. In contrast to
AZA, decitabine (DAC) has not been shown to improve OS in randomized trials but was associated with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), a delay in progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and improvements in quality of life and transfusion depen- dence compared to best supportive care [9,10].
While no formal consensus definition exists, the term HMA failure is commonly applied to both primary HMA failure (i.e. failure to

* Corresponding author. Section of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Yale University, 333 Cedar Street, PO Box 208028, New Haven, CT, 06520-8028, USA.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.M. Zeidan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beha.2021.101245

Available online 12 January 2021
1521-6926/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

achieve an objective response after receipt of 4–6 cycles of HMA treatment in the absence of overt disease progression) and secondary HMA failure (i.e. patient who initially achieved an objective response but experienced disease progression while receiving HMA) [6, 11]. As the prognosis of MDS patients refractory to or progressing on HMA treatment is poor with a median OS of 4–6 months and no effective salvage options exist for patients with HR-MDS, this common clinical scenario continues to represent a dilemma of significant unmet need [12–14]. Herein, we provide an overview of the current approach to HR-MDS patients with HMA failure and review emerging therapeutic modalities in this setting.

⦁ Current approach to MDS patients with HMA failure
Similar to the frontline setting, treatment approaches to MDS patients with HMA failure should be individualized based on vali- dated risk stratification tools such as the revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) [15]. While the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has approved AZA only for the treatment of HR-MDS patients, HMA are being used also for lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS) in the United States and other parts of the world [6]. As patients with HMA failure can be either higher- or lower-risk based on IPSS-R, it is important to reassess IPSS-R at the time of HMA failure as subsequent treatment options and prognosis may vary accordingly (median
OS of patients with LR-MDS who experience HMA failure has been reported to be 17 months compared to 4–6 months for HR-MDS)
[13,14,16]. Fig. 1 provides a proposed treatment approach in this setting. In this manuscript, we focus on treatment options for HR-MDS patients and would like to refer readers to recent publications discussing novel treatment options for LR-MDS [6,17,18].
Given the poor prognosis of HMA failure, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) should be considered for eligible patients as this constitutes the only potentially curative therapeutic modality [6,19]. However, even with allo-HCT the 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) has been reported to be only 23.8% in a retrospective single center study with no prospective data in this setting being available [20]. For the subset of patients with progression to AML, intensive chemotherapy with either standard cytarabine-anthracycline-based chemotherapy or the recently approved liposomal formulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin (CPX-351) could be considered either alone or as bridge to a subsequent allo-HCT [21,22]. CPX-351 is also currently being evaluated in the HMA-failure setting in MDS patients who have not progressed to AML [23]. Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind that only a minority of patients with HMA failure is even a candidate for intensive chemotherapy or allo-HCT and that no standard of care options exist in this setting. Fortunately, several novel agents have shown encouraging results in clinical trials recently.
⦁ Novel HMA
Switching from AZA to DAC or vice versa at the time of HMA failure has only limited efficacy with ORR of up to 28% for DAC following AZA-failure and median OS ranging from 6.0 to 7.3 months [24,25]. However, the DAC analogue guadecitabine (SGI-110), has demonstrated efficacy in the HMA-failure setting in a phase I/II trial [26,27]. Among 105 patients (54 previously treated with

Fig. 1. Proposed treatment algorithm for MDS patients with HMA failure: Patients should be reassessed at the time of HMA failure and treated with an individualized approach based on IPSS-R potentially supplemented by molecular testing for high-risk mutations (e.g. TP53). If patients fall into the lower-risk MDS category several treatment options are available including TPO mimetics (in thrombocytopenic patients), lenalidomide, or clinical trials. Given the poor prognosis of higher-risk MDS especially after HMA failure, all patients should be evaluated for an allogeneic he-
matopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT). For patients with >10% blasts, cytoreduction with either intensive chemotherapy or lower-intensity
treatment (ideally on clinical trial) should be considered. For patients who are not candidates for allo-HCT, patient preferences and performance status determine the next lines of therapy. Clinical trial enrollment if possible should be considered. In the absence of clinical trial options, molecularly targeted therapies (e.g. IDH1/2 or FLT3 inhibitors) or molecularly-agnostic therapies (e.g. low-dose cytarabine, venetoclax, glasdegib) can potentially be used in an off-label manner. Clinical trial participation remains the preferred management options at every step of the dis- ease management.

≥
=
HMA) with HR-MDS or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), 43% (95% CI: 30–58%) had an objective response. However, grade 3 cytopenias (thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and anemia in: 41%, 40%, and 47% in the 60 mg/m2 group and 57%, 51%, and 49% in the 90 mg/m2 group, respectively) and infectious complications (febrile neutropenia: 32–43%; pneumonia: 25–31%) were common and 7 patients (7%) died due to adverse events [27]. Median OS in the HMA-failure cohort was 352 days (95% CI: 262–505 days) with a 2-year survival rate of 25% (95% CI: 14–38) [27]. In a subsequent analysis from this trial that included only previously untreated patients, the presence of TP53 mutations was associated with inferior OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.25, p 0.019), while overall
= = =
response (HR 0.42, p 0.003), early response (HR 0.56, p 0.039), and allo-HCT (HR 0.36, p 0.021) predicted favorable outcomes
in a multivariate analysis [28]. While those initial results were encouraging, a press release from the ongoing phase III trial of gua- decitabine vs physician’s choice of alternate therapy (NCT02907359; ASTRAL-3) in previously HMA-treated MDS/CMML patients reported that the primary endpoint of improvement in OS was not met [29]. It remains to be seen once the final results of the study are reported whether any patient subpopulations benefited or whether there were any secondary clinical benefits observed. Table 1

Table 1
Results from selected trials of novel agents for MDS with HMA failure.

Author (reference)
Novel HMA
Therapy Target Phase Study population Outcomes

Garcia-Manero et al. [27]
Guadecitabine Novel HMA I/II HR-MDS or CMML (49% HMA-naive; 51%
HMA-refractory)
Toxicity: grade ≥3 TEAE more common with higher dose and mainly hematologic (anemia,
neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia >40%); 7 patients died due to adverse events
Efficacy: ORR of 40–55% in frontline setting; 43% in HMA failure setting

Garcia-Manero et al. [32]
CC-486 Novel HMA Combination of 3 phase I/II trials
MDS (n = 26), CMML
(n = 2), and AML (n =
12); all HMA failure
Toxicity: grade ≥3 TEAE: anemia (33%), thrombocytopenia (23%), neutropenia (15%),
febrile neutropenia (10%)
Efficacy: 35% ORR (1 AML patient with CR, 4 MDS patients with mCR)

Novel agents as monotherapy

Garcia-Manero et al. [65]

Sallman et al. [77]

Steensma et al. [78]
Rigosertib vs BSC Multikinase
inhibitor

Glasdegib Smoothened inhibitor

H3B-8800 Splicing modulator
III HR-MDS (all HMA
failure)

II 35 MDS patients (all HMA failure)

⦁ AML (n = 38), CMML (n = 4), MDS (n = 42);
87% with prior HMA
Toxicity: grade ≥3 TEAE more common with rigosertib: anemia (18% vs 8%),
thrombocytopenia (19% vs 7%), neutropenia
(17% vs 8%), febrile neutropenia (12% vs 11%) Efficacy: median OS: 8.2 months (95% CI
6.1–10.1) with rigosertib vs 5.9 months
(4.1–9.3) with BSC (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67–1.14;
p = 0.33).
Toxicity: grade 3/4 AE: 11% with infection, 6% thrombocytopenia
Efficacy: ORR 6% (2 patients with mCR and HI; median OS 10.4 months
Toxicity: sinus bradycardia, QTc prolongation and nausea as dose-limiting toxicities Efficacy: 0% CR or PR

Zeidan et al. [47]
Ipilimumab CTLA-4 I 29 MDS patients (all HMA failure)
Toxicity: grade 2–4 immune-related AE in 24%
of patients
Efficacy: mCR 3%; 24% with prolonged (≥46 weeks) SD

HMA-based combination therapies

Moyo et al. [63]
AZA + pevonedistat NEDD-8
activating enzyme inhibitor
⦁ 21 patients with MDS, 2 with MDS/MPN; all with prior HMA exposure
Toxicity: thrombocytopenia (39%), anemia (35%), leukopenia (26%), neutropenia (22%),
infections (17%), and febrile neutropenia (13%)
Efficacy: ORR 43% with 24% CR

Cortes et al. [60]
Olutasenib±AZA or
cytarabine
IDH1 inhibitor I/II 20 IDH1-mutant MDS patients (55% prior HMA)
Toxicity: grade 3/4 AE: neutropenia (30%), thrombocytopenia (25%)
Efficacy: ORR 33% (single agent: 17% CR) and 73% (combination; 55% CR)

Richard-
Carpentier et al. [59]
Zeidan et al. [39]
Enasidenib +/AZA IDH2 inhibitor II 25 IDH2-mutant MDS
(60% HMA failure)

Venetoclax + AZA BCL2 inhibitor Ib 38 MDS patients (all HMA failure)
Toxicity: grade 3/4 AE in 44% of patients Efficacy: ORR 100% in HMA-naïve; 50% in HMA failure cohort
Toxicity: grade 3/4 AE: neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (42%)
Efficacy: ORR 39% (CR 7%, mCR 32%). Median
OS: 12.3 months

AE – adverse events; AML – acute myeloid leukemia; AZA – azacitidine; BSC – best supportive care; CMML – chronic myelomonocytic leukemia; CR – complete remission; HI – hematologic improvement; HMA – hypomethylating agent; mCR – marrow complete remission; MDS – myelodysplastic syndrome; MPN – myeloproliferative neoplasm; ORR – overall response rate; OS – overall survival; PFS – progression-free survival; TEAE – treatment- emergent adverse events; R/R – relapsed/refractory.

provides a selection of reported results from clinical trials for MDS patients with HMA failure.
In contrast to AZA and DAC, their novel, orally available analogues CC-486 and ASTX727 could usher in an era of HMA therapy that does not require frequent clinic visits and is likely to improve patient satisfaction and quality of life. CC-486 is an oral AZA analogue, which has been approved for maintenance therapy in AML patients who achieved complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) following induction chemotherapy but are not candidates for allo-HCT. It is important to note that this drug has not been FDA approved for the management of MDS. While CC-486 has been shown to prolong survival compared to placebo in the randomized phase III QUAZAR AML-001 trial [30], data in MDS especially in the HMA failure setting are more limited. In a phase I/II study (NCT00528983) in LR-MDS patients testing a 14-day and 21-day administration schedule, 36% of patients receiving 14-day dosing and 41% of patients in the 21-day cohort achieved an overall response defined as CR, partial remission, hematologic improvement or red blood cell or platelet transfusion independence [31]. Pooled data from 3 phase I/II studies with 28 MDS and CMML patients with prior HMA treatment showed a 35% ORR with 0% CR and 14% marrow CRs (mCRs) [32].
Similar to CC-486, the oral DAC analogue ASTX727, that combines DAC with the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine has recently been approved for previously untreated HR-MDS and CMML based on two open-label, randomized, crossover trials that
showed equivalence of intravenous DAC and ASTX727 (NCT02103478; NCT02103478) [33–35]. Response rates in the frontline setting were encouraging with CR rates of 11–21% and transfusion independence in 30–53% of patients in the respective trials

Table 2
Selected ongoing clinical trials of novel agents in MDS with HMA failure.
Drug Phase NCT Patient characteristics Intervention

Guadecitabine I/II NCT02935361 R/R MDS or CMML Guadecitabine + atezolizumab
⦁ NCT02907359 (ASTRAL- HMA-refractory MDS or CMML Guadecitabine vs treatment choice (low-dose

CC-486 II
Rigosertib III
3 trial) NCT02281084
NCT02562443 (INSPIRE
trial)

HMA-refractory MDS HMA-refractory HR-MDS
cytarabine, BSC, 7 + 3)
CC-486 + durvalumab vs CC-486 alone Rigosertib vs treatment choice

Ivosidenib II NCT03503409 IDH1 Mutated, HMA-refractory MDS Ivosidenib

III NCT03839771 (HOVON150AML)
IDH1 Mutated newly diagnosed and R/R-AML and HR- MDS
Ivosidenib or placebo in combination with induction and consolidation therapy

Enasidenib II NCT03744390 IDH2 Mutated MDS Enasidenib

⦁ NCT03383575 IDH2 Mutated, HMA-naïve and HMA-
refractory MDS
Enasidenib + AZA or enasidenib alone in HMA- refractory patients

⦁ FT-2102 MBG453 ⦁ II
⦁
⦁ I I ⦁ NCT02719574
⦁
⦁ NCT03940352 NCT03066648 ⦁ IDH1 Mutated R/R-AML and HR- MDS
⦁
⦁ AML, HMA-refractory HR-MDS AML, HR-MDS
⦁ Nivolumab ⦁ I/II ⦁ NCT02530463 ⦁ Untreated or HMA-refractory MDS
⦁ Pembrolizumab ⦁ I ⦁ NCT02936752 ⦁ HMA-refractory MDS
⦁ ⦁ I ⦁ NCT03969446 ⦁ Frontline and R/R HR-MDS and AML
⦁
⦁ Ipilimumab Pevonedistat ⦁ II
⦁ Ib/II I
⦁ I ⦁ NCT03094637 NCT02890329 NCT03459859
⦁ NCT03814005 ⦁ Untreated or HMA-refractory MDS R/R-AML and MDS
⦁ R/R-AML, HMA-refractory MDS
⦁ R/R-AML, HMA-refractory MDS, CMML with
⦁
⦁ NCT03839771 (HOVON150AML)
IDH1 Mutated newly diagnosed and R/R-AML and HR- MDS

liver or renal impairment
Ivosidenib or placebo in combination with induction and consolidation therapy
FT-2102 alone or in combination with AZA or cytarabine
HDM201 + MBG453 or venetoclax
MBG453 + Decitabine or PDR001 (anti-PD-1 antibody)
Nivolumab±ipilimumab ± AZA Pembrolizumab + entinostat Pembrolizumab + decitabine Pembrolizumab + AZA Ipilimumab + decitabine
Pevonedistat + low-dose cytarabine Pevonedistat + AZA or chemotherapy

Venetoclax

CPX-351
II NCT03238248 HMA-refractory MDS or MDS/MPN Pevonedistat + AZA
I NCT03772925 R/R-AML, HMA-refractory MDS Pevonedistat + belinostat
I NCT04017546 R/R-AML or MDS Venetoclax + CYC065 CDK inhibitor
I NCT02966782 HMA-refractory MDS Venetoclax alone or in combination with AZA
I NCT04146038 R/R-AML or MDS Salsalate + decitabine/AZA + venetoclax I/II NCT03661307 Frontline and R/R, AML and MDS Decitabine + venetoclax + quizartinib
⦁ NCT03113643 Frontline and R/R AML and HR-MDS SL-401 + AZA±venetoclax
I/II NCT04140487 R/R, FLT3-mutated AML and MDS Venetoclax + AZA + gilteritinib II NCT04487106 R/R, RAS pathway-mutated AML and MDS Venetoclax + AZA + trametinib II NCT03404193 R/R AML and MDS Venetoclax + decitabine
I/II NCT04550442 HMA-refractory MDS and CMML Venetoclax + AZA I/II NCT04160052 Frontline and R/R HR-MDS Venetoclax + AZA
I/II NCT04109690 HMA-refractory MDS CPX-351
⦁ NCT03957876 HMA-refractory MDS CPX-351
I/II NCT04273802 Untreated or HMA-refractory MDS CPX-351
I/II NCT04128748 Frontline and R/R AML and MDS CPX-351 + quizartinib I NCT03896269 HMA-refractory MDS CPX-351

Quizartinib I/II NCT01892371 R/R AML and MDS Quizartinib + AZA

I/II NCT04493138 Untreated or HMA-refractory MDS, MDS/
MPN with FLT3 or CBL mutations
Quizartinib + AZA

AML – acute myeloid leukemia; AZA – azacitidine; BSC – best supportive care; CMML – chronic myelomonocytic leukemia; HMA – hypomethylating agent; MDS – myelodysplastic syndrome; MPN – myeloproliferative neoplasm; R/R – relapsed/refractory.

[33–35]. The safety profile of ASTX727 appeared comparable to DAC in terms of ≥grade 3 neutropenia (30–52%), thrombocytopenia (38–50%), and febrile neutropenia (16–29%) [33–35]. However, the efficacy of ASTX727 in the HMA failure setting is unknown and given the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence at the approved dose of this agent with intravenous decitabine it
appears that any clinical activity after true HMA failure/resistance (in contrast to injectable HMA intolerance) would likely be very limited.
⦁ HMA-based combination therapies
⦁ Venetoclax
+
≥
+ +
The combination of AZA or low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) with the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax has offered a new and effective therapeutic option for patients with AML who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. In both placebo-controlled, phase III studies of AZA venetoclax and LDAC venetoclax the combination arm showed a significant OS benefit compared to AZA and LDAC mon- otherapy although this difference in the LDAC venetoclax trial only reached statistical significance after an additional 6 months of follow up [36,37]. Preliminary data from MDS patients in both the frontline and HMA failure setting have been presented [38,39]. In one ongoing phase Ib study enrolling untreated MDS patients (78 evaluable) the AZA-venetoclax combination showed an ORR of 79% (40% CR and 40% mCR) with grade 3 adverse events in 96% of patients with neutropenia (82%), febrile neutropenia (49%), and thrombocytopenia (42%) being the most common [38]. With limited follow-up, the median OS was 27.5 months (95% CI: 18.2 months
+
– not reached) [38]. In the HMA-failure setting, Zeidan et al. also demonstrated feasibility of the combination of AZA venetoclax (venetoclax given for 14 days each cycle in both frontline and relapsed/refractory trials in contrast to the 28-day AML schedule) in an
ongoing phase Ib study [39]. Among the 44 MDS patients with HMA failure ORR was 39% (7% CR; 32% mCR [of which 43% were associated with hematologic improvement]) [39]. The median OS was 12.3 months (95% CI: 9.6 months – not reached), which compared favorably with the historical 4–6 months post HMA failure reported in prior studies [13,39]. Data from the same trial also
suggest that venetoclax monotherapy after HMA failure has poor clinical activity [40]. While not approved for treatment of MDS patients, data from a retrospective multicenter study with 44 MDS patients (73% with prior HMA treatment) showed ORR of 75% in HMA-naïve and 44% in HMA-failure patients [41]. Although those early results are encouraging, data from ongoing larger and ran- domized trials are needed (Table 2).

⦁ Immune checkpoint blockade
Upregulation of immune checkpoint receptors following HMA therapy provides the scientific rationale for combining immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) with HMA [42,43]. Although preliminary data from single-arm studies supported synergistic effects of AZA in combination with the anti-PD-1 antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab as well as the anti-CTLA4 antibody ipilimumab including
patients with HMA failure [44–47], the only randomized trial in this field did not show a benefit with the addition of the anti-PD-L1
antibody durvalumab to AZA compared to AZA monotherapy in neither AML nor MDS with regards to ORR, median OS and PFS [48]. However, it is important to note that this trial was in the frontline setting of patients without prior HMA treatment [48]. Another study by Zeidan and colleagues suggested that while the objective response rate was very low with ipilimumab monotherapy after HMA failure, some patients did achieve prolonged stable disease, which is a potentially meaningful benefit in an otherwise usually pro- gressive disease [47].
Conversely, the anti-CD47 antibody magrolimab, the anti-TIM3 antibody sabatolimab (MBG-453), and the anti-CD70 antibody
cusatuzumab have all shown encouraging early results in combination with HMA in newly diagnosed, untreated MDS and AML pa- tients [49–51]. As none of these trials included a randomized control group and patients with previous HMA therapy have been largely excluded, the efficacy of these agents in the HMA-failure setting warrants additional studies. Currently, there are several advanced phase clinical trials ongoing using sabatolimab primarily in the frontline setting for the treatment of patients with HR-MDS or older unfit AML in combination with HMA or AZA/venetoclax, respectively (STIMULUS program; e.g. NCT03946670, NCT04266301), with
additional earlier trials also enrolling patients with HMA-failure (e.g. NCT03940352) [52]. Similar frontline trials for HMA-naïve patients are also ongoing for magrolimab (ENHANCE trial; NCT04313881) and cusatuzumab (e.g. NCT04264806).

⦁ IDH inhibitors

Thanks to advances in molecular diagnostics, driver mutations in genes such as IDH1 and IDH2 have been identified in a subset of MDS patients and do not only provide prognostic information but have also enabled novel targeted therapies [53–55]. While the prevalence of targetable driver mutations in IDH1, IDH2, and FLT3 is lower in the MDS population than in AML patients, they are present in about 5–10% of patients and could provide an additional therapeutic target [55–57]. While most trials have focused on AML patients, the IDH1 inhibitor ivosidenib and the IDH2 inhibitor enasidenib as monotherapy have been shown to achieve ORR of 91.7%
(41.7% CR) and 50% (16.7% CR) in relapsed/refractory MDS patients, respectively, with a very reassuring safety profile including no treatment discontinuations due to adverse events and incidence of IDH differentiation syndrome of 12.0–16.7% of patients [58,59]. Another IDH1 inhibitor olatusidenib (FT-2102) has also been evaluated in a phase II trial of 20 IDH1-mutant MDS (11 patients with
prior HMA therapy) either in combination with AZA or as monotherapy with ORR of 73% (95% CI: 39–94%; 55% CR) and 33% (95% CI: 4–78%; 17% CR), respectively [60]. However, results for patients with HMA failure have not been reported separately.

⦁ Pevonedistat
≥
+
Pevonedistat inhibits proteasomal degradation of intracellular proteins by inhibiting neural precursor cell expressed, develop- mentally downregulated 8 (NEDD8)-activating enzyme and has been demonstrated to have synergistic effects with AZA and venetoclax in preclinical models of AML [61,62]. Preliminary data from an ongoing phase II study in HMA-refractory MDS patients (NCT03238248) that treated 23 patients with AZA pevonedistat showed an ORR of 42.9% (9 out of 21 patients; 1 CR and 4 mCRs) with 3 grade thrombocytopenia (39%), anemia (35%) as well as infections (17%), and febrile neutropenia (13%) being the most frequent hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events [63].
⦁ Rigosertib
Rigosertib is a multikinase inhibitor that acts primarily by inhibition of Ras signaling [64,65]. Although rigosertib failed to achieve a statistically significant OS benefit in a randomized phase III trial compared to best supportive care (8.2 months [95% CI 6.1–10.1] vs
5.9 months [95% CI: 4.1–9.3 months]; HR: 0.87 [95% CI 0.67–1.14] p = 0.33), subgroup analyses did suggest a potential benefit in patients with primary HMA failure (HR: 0.72; 99% CI: 0.46–1.13; p = 0.06) and very high-risk disease by IPSS-R (HR: 0.61 [99% CI: 0.36–1.03], p = 0.015) [65]. However, a subsequent open-label, randomized phase III trial (INSPIRE; NCT02562443) comparing rigosertib to physician’s treatment choice in MDS patients after HMA failure within this patient subset also failed to meet its primary
endpoint of OS benefit as announced by the manufacturer in a press release [66]. Pending release of the detailed results, the role of rigosertib in the treatment of MDS with HMA-failure is uncertain.
⦁ Conclusions and future directions
HMA failure remains a common clinical dilemma in MDS patients with an adverse prognosis. In the absence of effective salvage strategies, minimizing the risk of HMA failure by avoiding treatment interruptions and premature discontinuation is essential. Two general approaches to reduce or delay HMA failure exist: 1.) optimization of frontline treatment strategies (e.g. by the addition of synergistic agents to a HMA backbone) and 2.) development of more effective salvage therapies.
While HMA monotherapy remains the guideline-recommended standard therapy for HR-MDS patients [2,3], treatment of MDS is likely becoming increasingly individualized based on cytogenetic and molecular disease characteristics. Although no molecular marker has been sufficiently validated to predict response to HMA therapy, TET2 mutations have been suggested to predict a higher response to HMA, while ASXL1 mutations or 4 or more mutations are associated with lower response rates to HMA [67,68]. However, integrating genetic markers with other disease characteristics and predicting the interdependent effect of combinations of various
different mutations remains challenging but is being actively studied using artificial intelligence [69–71].
Across several studies, TP53 mutations have been associated with adverse outcomes even following allo-HCT in MDS patients and remains one of the areas of greatest unmet clinical needs [54,72]. However, emerging data suggest that additional factors such as variant allele frequency and the presence of other cytogenetic factors have a modifying effect on the prognosis of TP53 mutations [73, 74]. Recently, APR-246, a small molecule that binds covalently to mutant p53, leading to refolding and reactivation of the mutant protein, has demonstrated preliminary evidence of activity in combination with AZA in two phase I/II trials for the frontline treatment
of TP53-mutant MDS, CMML, and AML with <30% blasts. ORR among 45 evaluable patients was 87% (53% CR) with a median OS of + + 11.6 months (95% CI: 9.2–14 months) in one trial (NCT03072043) [75], and 63% (47% CR) in another trial (NCT03588078), however survival appears to be still limited [76]. This led to a randomized phase III trial of AZA APR-246 vs AZA placebo (NCT03745716), which has completed patient accrual. Similarly, the combination of the anti-CD47 antibody magrolimab and AZA has also shown early signs of clinical activity in terms of response in MDS patients, especially those with TP53 mutations but the trial had a small number of patients and limited duration of follow-up [50]. Although neither combination has been evaluated in previously HMA-treated patients, this highlights the potential of an individualized, genetically driven frontline treatment of MDS patients to avoid HMA failure in the first place as well as the possibility of studying these agents in the HMA failure setting. Clinical trials of HMA-failure patients have been largely disappointing. Neither the spliceosome inhibitor H3B-8800, nor the multikinase inhibitor rigosertib or the smoothened inhibitor glasdegib have shown meaningful response rates or survival benefits compared to best supportive care in clinical trials of HMA-refractory MDS patients [65,77,78]. Several trials in this setting are still ongoing (Table 2). In summary, HMA failure remains a frequent clinical challenge with an adverse prognosis and limited salvage therapies. For eligible patients, allo-HCT and/or clinical trial enrollment should be considered [19]. Several novel combination therapies have shown promising results in the frontline setting, very little success has been observed in the HMA failure setting. Options for MDS patients with HMA failure remain very limited highlighting the need for both optimization for frontline treatment and better salvage strategies. Author contributions Both authors wrote and approved the final manuscript. Funding There was no dedicated funding associated with this article. Declaration of competing interest A.M.Z. received research funding (institutional) from Celgene/BMS, Abbvie, Astex, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca, Boehringer- Ingelheim, Trovagene/Cardiff oncology, Incyte, Takeda, Novartis, Aprea, and ADC Therapeutics. A.M.Z participated in advisory boards, and/or had a consultancy with and received honoraria from AbbVie, Otsuka, Pfizer, Celgene/BMS, Jazz, Incyte, Agios, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Acceleron, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Cardinal Health, Taiho, Seattle Genetics, BeyondSpring, Tro- vagene/Cardiff Oncology, Takeda, Ionis, Amgen, Janssen, Epizyme, Syndax, Gilead, Kura, and Tyme. A.M.Z served on clinical trial committees for Novartis, Abbvie, Geron and Celgene/BMS. A.M.Z received travel support for meetings from Pfizer, Novartis, and Cardiff Oncology. None of these relationships were related to the development of this manuscript. J.P.B. has no conflicts of interest to declare. Acknowledgements AMZ is a Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Scholar in Clinical Research and is also supported by a NCI’s Cancer Clinical Inves- tigator Team Leadership Award (CCITLA). This research was partly funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number P30 CA016359. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. References Fenau⦁ x⦁ P, Mufti GJ, Hellstrom-Lindberg E, Santini V, Finelli C, Giagounidis A, et al. Efficacy of azacitidine compared with that of conventional care regimens in ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ treatment⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ higher-risk⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes:⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ randomised,⦁ ⦁ open-label,⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ III⦁ ⦁ study.⦁ ⦁ Lancet⦁ ⦁ Oncol⦁ ⦁ 2009;10(3):223⦁ –⦁ 32. Greenberg⦁ ⦁ PL,⦁ ⦁ Stone⦁ ⦁ RM,⦁ ⦁ Al-Kali⦁ ⦁ A,⦁ ⦁ Barta⦁ ⦁ SK,⦁ ⦁ Bejar⦁ ⦁ R,⦁ ⦁ Bennett⦁ ⦁ JM,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes,⦁ ⦁ version⦁ ⦁ 2.2017,⦁ ⦁ NCCN⦁ ⦁ clinical⦁ ⦁ practice⦁ ⦁ guidelines⦁ ⦁ in ⦁ oncology.⦁ ⦁ J⦁ ⦁ Natl⦁ ⦁ Compr⦁ ⦁ Canc⦁ ⦁ Netw⦁ ⦁ 2017;15(1):60⦁ –⦁ 87. Malcovati⦁ ⦁ L,⦁ ⦁ Hellst⦁ r⦁ o⦁ ¨⦁ m-Lindberg⦁ ⦁ E,⦁ ⦁ Bowen⦁ ⦁ D,⦁ ⦁ A⦁ d⦁ `⦁ es⦁ ⦁ L,⦁ ⦁ Cermak⦁ ⦁ J,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Del⦁ ⦁ C⦁ a⦁ n⦁ ˜⦁ izo⦁ ⦁ C,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Diagnosis⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ treatment⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ primary⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ adults: recommendations from the European LeukemiaNet. Blood 2013;122(17):2943–64. Silverman⦁ ⦁ LR,⦁ ⦁ McKenzie⦁ ⦁ DR,⦁ ⦁ Peterson⦁ ⦁ BL,⦁ ⦁ Holland⦁ ⦁ JF,⦁ ⦁ Backstrom⦁ ⦁ JT,⦁ ⦁ Beach⦁ ⦁ CL,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Further⦁ ⦁ analysis⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ trials⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ azacitidine⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ patients⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic syndrome: studies 8421, 8921, and 9221 by the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(24):3895–903. Sekeres⦁ ⦁ MA,⦁ ⦁ Othus⦁ ⦁ M,⦁ ⦁ List⦁ ⦁ AF,⦁ ⦁ Odenike⦁ ⦁ O,⦁ ⦁ Stone⦁ ⦁ RM,⦁ ⦁ Gore⦁ ⦁ SD,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Randomized⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ II⦁ ⦁ study⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ azacitidine⦁ ⦁ alone⦁ ⦁ or⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ combination⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ lenalidomide⦁ ⦁ or⦁ ⦁ with vorinostat in higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia: North American intergroup study SWOG S1117. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35(24):2745–53. Santini⦁ ⦁ V.⦁ ⦁ How⦁ ⦁ I⦁ ⦁ treat⦁ ⦁ MDS⦁ ⦁ after⦁ ⦁ hypomethylating⦁ ⦁ agent⦁ ⦁ failure.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2019;133(6):521⦁ –⦁ 9. Bernal T, Martinez-Camblor P, Sanchez-Garcia ⦁ J, ⦁ de Paz R, Luno E, Nomdedeu B, et al. Effectiveness of azacitidine in unselected high-risk myelodysplastic ⦁ syndromes:⦁ ⦁ results⦁ ⦁ from⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ Spanish⦁ ⦁ registry.⦁ ⦁ Leukemia⦁ ⦁ 2015;29(9):1875⦁ –⦁ 81. Zeidan AM, Hu X, Zhu W, Stahl M, Wang R, Huntington SF, et al. Association of provider experience and clinical outcomes in patients with myelodysplastic ⦁ syndromes⦁ receiving hypomethylating agents. Leuk Lymphoma⦁ ⦁ 2020;61(2):397⦁ –⦁ 408. Lubbert M, Suciu S, Baila L, Ruter BH, Platzbecker U, Giagounidis A, et al. Low-dose decitabine versus best supportive care in elderly patients with⦁ ⦁ intermediate- or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy: final results of the randomized phase III study of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Leukemia Group and the German MDS Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2011;29(15):1987–96. Kantarjian⦁ ⦁ H,⦁ ⦁ Issa⦁ ⦁ JP,⦁ ⦁ Rosenfeld⦁ ⦁ CS,⦁ ⦁ Bennett⦁ ⦁ JM,⦁ ⦁ Albitar⦁ ⦁ M,⦁ ⦁ DiPersio⦁ ⦁ J,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Decitabine⦁ ⦁ improves⦁ ⦁ patient⦁ ⦁ outcomes⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes:⦁ ⦁ results⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ a ⦁ phase⦁ III randomized study. Cancer⦁ ⦁ 2006;106(8):1794⦁ –⦁ 803. Bewersdorf JP, Zeidan AM. Management of higher risk myelodysplastic syndromes after hypomethylating agents failure: are we about to exit the black hole? ⦁ E⦁ x⦁ pet Rev Hematol⦁ ⦁ 2020;13(10):1131⦁ –⦁ 42. Bewersdorf JP, Carraway H, Prebet T. Emerging treatment options for patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. Ther Adv Hematol 2020;11. ⦁ 2040620720955006. P⦁ r⦁ e⦁ ´⦁ bet⦁ ⦁ ⦁ T,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Gore⦁ ⦁ ⦁ SD,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Esterni⦁ ⦁ ⦁ B,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Gardin⦁ ⦁ ⦁ C,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Itzykson⦁ ⦁ ⦁ R,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Thepot⦁ ⦁ ⦁ S,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Outcome⦁ ⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ ⦁ high-risk⦁ ⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndrome⦁ ⦁ ⦁ after⦁ ⦁ ⦁ azacitidine⦁ ⦁ ⦁ treatment⦁ ⦁ ⦁ failure.⦁ ⦁ ⦁ J⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Clin Oncol 2011;29(24):3322–7. Jabbour⦁ ⦁ E,⦁ ⦁ Garcia-Manero⦁ ⦁ G,⦁ ⦁ Batty⦁ ⦁ N,⦁ ⦁ Shan⦁ ⦁ J,⦁ ⦁ O⦁ ’⦁ Brien⦁ ⦁ S,⦁ ⦁ Cortes⦁ ⦁ J,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Outcome⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ patients⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndrome⦁ ⦁ after⦁ ⦁ failure⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ decitabine⦁ ⦁ therapy. ⦁ Cancer⦁ ⦁ 2010;116(16):3830⦁ –⦁ 4. Greenberg⦁ ⦁ PL,⦁ ⦁ Tuechler⦁ ⦁ H,⦁ ⦁ Schanz⦁ ⦁ J,⦁ ⦁ Sanz⦁ ⦁ G,⦁ ⦁ Garcia-Manero⦁ ⦁ G,⦁ ⦁ Sole⦁ ⦁ F,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Revised⦁ ⦁ international⦁ ⦁ prognostic⦁ ⦁ scoring⦁ ⦁ system⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes. ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2012;120(12):2454⦁ –⦁ 65. Jabbour⦁ ⦁ EJ,⦁ ⦁ Garcia-Manero⦁ ⦁ G,⦁ ⦁ Strati⦁ ⦁ P,⦁ ⦁ Mishra⦁ ⦁ A,⦁ ⦁ Al⦁ ⦁ Ali⦁ ⦁ NH,⦁ ⦁ Padron⦁ ⦁ E,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Outcome⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ patients⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ low-risk⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ intermediate-1-risk⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic ⦁ syndrome⦁ after hypomethylating agent failure: a report on behalf of the MDS Clinical Research Consortium. Cancer⦁ ⦁ 2015;121(6):876⦁ –⦁ 82. Bewersdorf⦁ ⦁ JP,⦁ ⦁ Zeidan⦁ ⦁ AM.⦁ ⦁ Evolving⦁ ⦁ therapies⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ lower-risk⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes.⦁ ⦁ Ann⦁ ⦁ Hematol⦁ ⦁ 2020. Platzbecker⦁ ⦁ U.⦁ ⦁ Treatment⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ MDS.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2019.⦁ ⦁ blood-2018-10-844696. Scott⦁ ⦁ BL.⦁ ⦁ E⦁ x⦁ isting⦁ ⦁ agents,⦁ ⦁ novel⦁ ⦁ agents,⦁ ⦁ or⦁ ⦁ transplantation⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ high-risk⦁ ⦁ MDS.⦁ ⦁ Hematology⦁ ⦁ 2020;2020(1):411⦁ –⦁ 7. Festuccia M, Baker K, Gooley TA, Sandmaier BM, Deeg HJ, Scott BL. Hematopoietic cell transplantation in myelodysplastic syndromes after treatment with ⦁ hypomethylating⦁ agents. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant⦁ ⦁ 2017;23(9):1509⦁ –⦁ 14. Lancet JE, Uy GL, Cortes JE, Newell LF, Lin TL, Ritchie EK, et al. CPX-351 (cytarabine and daunorubicin) liposome for injection versus conventional cytarabine ⦁ plus⦁ daunorubicin in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. ⦁ J ⦁ Clin Oncol⦁ ⦁ 2018;36(26):2684⦁ –⦁ 92. Ball⦁ ⦁ B,⦁ ⦁ Komrokji⦁ ⦁ RS,⦁ ⦁ Ades⦁ ⦁ L,⦁ ⦁ Sekeres⦁ ⦁ MA,⦁ ⦁ DeZern⦁ ⦁ AE,⦁ ⦁ Pleyer⦁ ⦁ L,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Evaluation⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ induction⦁ ⦁ chemotherapies⦁ ⦁ after⦁ ⦁ hypomethylating⦁ ⦁ agent⦁ ⦁ failure⦁ ⦁ in myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Adv 2018;2(16):2063–71. Nazha⦁ ⦁ A,⦁ ⦁ Mukherjee⦁ ⦁ S,⦁ ⦁ Advani⦁ ⦁ AS,⦁ ⦁ Waldron⦁ ⦁ M,⦁ ⦁ Siebenaller⦁ ⦁ C,⦁ ⦁ Thomas⦁ ⦁ J,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ A⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ II⦁ ⦁ study⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ CPX-351⦁ ⦁ as⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ novel⦁ ⦁ therapeutic⦁ ⦁ approach⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ patients⦁ ⦁ with ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes⦁ ⦁ (MDS)⦁ ⦁ after⦁ ⦁ hypomethylating⦁ ⦁ agent⦁ ⦁ failure.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2020;136(Supplement⦁ ⦁ 1):1. Harel⦁ ⦁ S,⦁ ⦁ Cherait⦁ ⦁ A,⦁ ⦁ Berthon⦁ ⦁ C,⦁ ⦁ Willekens⦁ ⦁ C,⦁ ⦁ Park⦁ ⦁ S,⦁ ⦁ Rigal⦁ ⦁ M,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Outcome⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ patients⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ high⦁ ⦁ risk⦁ ⦁ Myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ Syndrome⦁ ⦁ (MDS)⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ advanced⦁ ⦁ Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia (CMML) treated with decitabine after azacitidine failure. Leuk Res 2015;39(5):501–4. Borthakur G, El Ahdab S, Ravandi F, Faderl S, Ferrajoli A, Newman B, et al. Activity of decitabine in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome previously treated ⦁ with⦁ azacitidine. Leuk Lymphoma⦁ ⦁ 2008;49(4):690⦁ –⦁ 5. Issa ⦁ JJ, ⦁ Roboz G, Rizzieri D, Jabbour E, Stock W, O⦁ ’⦁ Connell C, et al. Safety and tolerability of guadecitabine (SGI-110) in patients with myelodysplastic ⦁ syndrome⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ acute⦁ ⦁ myeloid⦁ ⦁ leukaemia:⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ multicentre,⦁ ⦁ randomised,⦁ ⦁ dose-escalation⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ 1⦁ ⦁ study.⦁ ⦁ Lancet⦁ ⦁ Oncol⦁ ⦁ 2015;16(9):1099⦁ –⦁ 110. Garcia-Manero G, Roboz G, Walsh K, Kantarjian H, Ritchie E, Kropf P, et al. Guadecitabine (SGI-110) in patients with intermediate or high-risk myelodysplastic ⦁ syndromes:⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ 2⦁ ⦁ results⦁ ⦁ from⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ multicentre,⦁ ⦁ open-label,⦁ ⦁ randomised,⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ 1/2⦁ ⦁ trial.⦁ ⦁ Lancet⦁ ⦁ Haematol⦁ ⦁ 2019;6(6):e317⦁ –⦁ 27. Morita⦁ K, Montalban Bravo G, Sasaki K, Bodden KR, Wang F, Bose P, et al. Long-term follow up of a phase II study of guadecitabine (SGI-110) in patients with ⦁ higher-risk⦁ myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Blood 2020;136(Supplement⦁ ⦁ 1):21⦁ –⦁ 2. ⦁ Buckland M. Astex and Otsuka announce results of phase 3 ASTRAL-2 and ASTRAL-3 studies of guadecitabine (SGI-110) in patients with previously treated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. MDS/CMML; 2020 [cited 2020 12/12/2020]. Available from, ⦁ https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201014005914/en/Astex-and-Otsuka-Announce-Results-of-Phase-3-ASTRAL-2-and-ASTRAL-3-Studies-of- ⦁ Guadecitabine-SGI-110-in-Patients-with-Previously-Treated-Acute-Myeloid-Leukemia-AML-and-Myelodysplastic-Syndromes-or-Chronic-Myelomonocytic- ⦁ Leukemia-MDSCMM⦁ L. Wei⦁ ⦁ ⦁ AH,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ D⦁ o⦁ ¨⦁ hner⦁ ⦁ ⦁ H,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Pocock⦁ ⦁ ⦁ C,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Montesinos⦁ ⦁ ⦁ P,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Afanasyev⦁ ⦁ ⦁ B,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Dombret⦁ ⦁ ⦁ H,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ ⦁ The⦁ ⦁ ⦁ QUAZAR⦁ ⦁ ⦁ AML-001⦁ ⦁ ⦁ maintenance⦁ ⦁ ⦁ trial:⦁ ⦁ ⦁ results⦁ ⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ ⦁ III⦁ ⦁ ⦁ international, ⦁ randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of CC-486 (oral formulation of azacitidine) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first ⦁ remission.⦁ Blood 2019;134(Supplement_2).⦁ ⦁ LBA-3-LBA-. Garcia-Manero G, Gore SD, Kambhampati S, Scott B, Tefferi A, Cogle CR, et al. Efficacy and safety of extended dosing schedules of CC-486 (oral azacitidine) in ⦁ patients⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ lower-risk⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes.⦁ ⦁ Leukemia⦁ ⦁ 2016;30(4):889⦁ –⦁ 96. Garcia-Manero G, Savona MR, Gore SD, Scott BL, Cogle CR, Boyd T, et al. CC-486 (oral azacitidine) in patients with hematological malignancies who had ⦁ received⦁ ⦁ prior⦁ ⦁ treatment⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ injectable⦁ ⦁ hypomethylating⦁ ⦁ agents⦁ ⦁ (HMAs):⦁ ⦁ results⦁ ⦁ from⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ 1/2⦁ ⦁ CC-486⦁ ⦁ studies.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2016;128(22):905. Garcia-Manero⦁ ⦁ G,⦁ ⦁ Griffiths⦁ ⦁ EA,⦁ ⦁ Steensma⦁ ⦁ DP,⦁ ⦁ Roboz⦁ ⦁ GJ,⦁ ⦁ Wells⦁ ⦁ R,⦁ ⦁ McCloskey⦁ ⦁ J,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Oral⦁ ⦁ cedazuridine/decitabine⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ MDS⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ CMML:⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ 2 pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic randomized crossover study. Blood 2020;136(6):674–83. Savona⦁ ⦁ MR,⦁ ⦁ Odenike⦁ ⦁ O,⦁ ⦁ Amrein⦁ ⦁ PC,⦁ ⦁ Steensma⦁ ⦁ DP,⦁ ⦁ DeZern⦁ ⦁ AE,⦁ ⦁ Michaelis⦁ ⦁ LC,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ An⦁ ⦁ oral⦁ ⦁ fi⦁ x⦁ ed-dose⦁ ⦁ combination⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ decitabine⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ cedazuridine⦁ ⦁ in myelodysplastic syndromes: a multicentre, open-label, dose-escalation, phase 1 study. Lancet Haematol 2019;6(4):e194–203. Savona MR, McCloskey JK, Griffiths EA, Yee KWL, Al-Kali A, Zeidan AM, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of oral decitabine/cedazuridine in 133 patients with ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes⦁ ⦁ (MDS)⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ chronic⦁ ⦁ myelomonocytic⦁ ⦁ leukemia⦁ ⦁ (CMML).⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2020;136(Supplement⦁ ⦁ 1):37⦁ –⦁ 8. DiNardo⦁ ⦁ CD,⦁ ⦁ Jonas⦁ ⦁ BA,⦁ ⦁ Pullarkat⦁ ⦁ V,⦁ ⦁ Thirman⦁ ⦁ MJ,⦁ ⦁ Garcia⦁ ⦁ JS,⦁ ⦁ Wei⦁ ⦁ AH,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Azacitidine⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ venetoclax⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ previously⦁ ⦁ untreated⦁ ⦁ acute⦁ ⦁ myeloid⦁ ⦁ leukemia.⦁ ⦁ N⦁ ⦁ Engl⦁ ⦁ J ⦁ Med⦁ ⦁ 2020;383(7):617⦁ –⦁ 29. Wei AH, Montesinos P, Ivanov V, DiNardo CD, Novak ⦁ J, ⦁ Laribi K, et al. Venetoclax plus LDAC for patients with untreated AML ineligible for intensive ⦁ chemotherapy:⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ 3⦁ ⦁ randomized⦁ ⦁ placebo-controlled⦁ ⦁ trial.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2020. Garcia⦁ ⦁ JS,⦁ ⦁ Wei⦁ ⦁ AH,⦁ ⦁ Borate⦁ ⦁ U,⦁ ⦁ Fong⦁ ⦁ CY,⦁ ⦁ Baer⦁ ⦁ MR,⦁ ⦁ Nolte⦁ ⦁ F,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Safety,⦁ ⦁ efficacy,⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ patient-reported⦁ ⦁ outcomes⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ venetoclax⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ combination⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ azacitidine⦁ ⦁ for the treatment of patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome: a phase 1b study. Blood 2020;136(Supplement 1):55–7. Zeidan AM, Pollyea DA, Garcia JS, Brunner A, Roncolato F, Borate U, et al. A phase 1b study evaluating the safety and efficacy of venetoclax in combination ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ azacitidine⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ treatment⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ relapsed/refractory⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndrome.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2020;136(Supplement_1). Zeidan AM, Pollyea DA, Garcia JS, Brunner A, Roncolato F, Borate U, et al. A phase 1b study evaluating the safety and efficacy of venetoclax as monotherapy or ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ combination⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ azacitidine⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ treatment⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ relapsed/refractory⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndrome.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2019;134(Supplement_1):565. Ball BJ, Famulare CA, Stein EM, Tallman MS, Derkach A, Roshal M, et al. Venetoclax and hypomethylating agents (HMAs) induce high response rates in MDS, ⦁ including⦁ ⦁ patients⦁ ⦁ after⦁ ⦁ HMA⦁ ⦁ therapy⦁ ⦁ failure.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ Adv⦁ ⦁ 2020;4(13):2866⦁ –⦁ 70. Yang H, Bueso-Ramos C, DiNardo C, Estecio MR, Davanlou M, Geng QR, et al. E⦁ x⦁ pression of PD-L1, PD-L2, PD-1 and CTLA4 in myelodysplastic syndromes is ⦁ enhanced⦁ ⦁ by⦁ ⦁ treatment⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ hypomethylating⦁ ⦁ agents.⦁ ⦁ Leukemia⦁ ⦁ 2014;28(6):1280⦁ –⦁ 8. Bewersdorf JP, Shallis RM, Zeidan AM. Immune checkpoint inhibition in myeloid malignancies: moving beyond the PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 pathways. Blood ⦁ Rev⦁ ⦁ 2020:100709. Garcia-Manero G, Sasaki K, Montalban-Bravo G, Daver NG, Jabbour EJ, Alvarado Y, et al. A phase II study of nivolumab or ipilimumab with or without ⦁ azacitidine⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ patients⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndrome⦁ ⦁ (MDS).⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2018;132(Suppl⦁ ⦁ 1):465. Chien⦁ ⦁ KS,⦁ ⦁ Borthakur⦁ ⦁ G,⦁ ⦁ Naqvi⦁ ⦁ K,⦁ ⦁ Daver⦁ ⦁ N,⦁ ⦁ Montalban⦁ ⦁ Bravo⦁ ⦁ G,⦁ ⦁ Cortes⦁ ⦁ JE,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Final⦁ ⦁ results⦁ ⦁ from⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ II⦁ ⦁ study⦁ ⦁ combining⦁ ⦁ azacitidine⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ pembrolizumab⦁ ⦁ in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome after failure of hypomethylating agent therapy. Blood 2020;136(Supplement 1):23–4. Morita⦁ ⦁ K,⦁ ⦁ Kantarjian⦁ ⦁ HM,⦁ ⦁ Montalban⦁ ⦁ Bravo⦁ ⦁ G,⦁ ⦁ Sasaki⦁ ⦁ K,⦁ ⦁ Daver⦁ ⦁ N,⦁ ⦁ Jabbour⦁ ⦁ E,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ A⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ II⦁ ⦁ study⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ double⦁ ⦁ immune⦁ ⦁ checkpoint⦁ ⦁ inhibitor⦁ ⦁ blockade⦁ ⦁ with nivolumab and ipilimumab with or without azacitidine in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Blood 2020;136(Supplement 1):7–9. Zeidan AM, Knaus HA, Robinson TM, Towlerton AMH, Warren EH, Zeidner JF, et al. A multi-center phase I trial of ipilimumab in patients with myelodysplastic ⦁ syndromes⦁ ⦁ following⦁ ⦁ hypomethylating⦁ ⦁ agent⦁ ⦁ failure.⦁ ⦁ Clin⦁ ⦁ Canc⦁ ⦁ Res⦁ ⦁ 2018;24(15):3519⦁ –⦁ 27. Zeidan AM, Cavenagh ⦁ J, ⦁ Voso MT, Taussig D, Tormo M, Boss I, et al. Efficacy and safety of azacitidine (AZA) in combination with the anti-PD-L1 durvalumab ⦁ (durva) for the front-line treatment of older patients (pts) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are unfit for intensive chemotherapy (IC) and Pts with ⦁ higher-risk⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes⦁ ⦁ (HR-MDS):⦁ ⦁ results⦁ ⦁ from⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ large,⦁ ⦁ international,⦁ ⦁ randomized⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ 2⦁ ⦁ study.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2019;134(Supplement_1):829. Riether⦁ ⦁ ⦁ C,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Pabst⦁ ⦁ ⦁ T,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ H⦁ o⦁ ¨⦁ pner⦁ ⦁ ⦁ S,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Bacher⦁ ⦁ ⦁ U,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Hinterbrandner⦁ ⦁ ⦁ M,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Banz⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Y,⦁ ⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ ⦁ Targeting⦁ ⦁ ⦁ CD70⦁ ⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ ⦁ cusatuzumab⦁ ⦁ ⦁ eliminates⦁ ⦁ ⦁ acute⦁ ⦁ ⦁ myeloid⦁ ⦁ ⦁ leukemia⦁ ⦁ ⦁ stem⦁ ⦁ ⦁ cells⦁ ⦁ ⦁ in ⦁ patients⦁ ⦁ treated⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ hypomethylating⦁ ⦁ agents.⦁ ⦁ Nat⦁ ⦁ Med⦁ ⦁ 2020;26(9):1459⦁ –⦁ 67. Sallman DA, Asch AS, Al Malki MM, Lee DJ, Donnellan WB, Marcucci G, et al. The first-in-class Anti-CD47 antibody magrolimab (5F9) in combination with ⦁ azacitidine⦁ ⦁ is⦁ ⦁ effective⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ MDS⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ AML⦁ ⦁ patients:⦁ ⦁ ongoing⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ 1b⦁ ⦁ results.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2019;134(Supplement_1):569. Brunner AM, Esteve ⦁ J, ⦁ Porkka K, Knapper S, Vey N, Scholl S, et al. Efficacy and safety of sabatolimab (MBG453) in combination with hypomethylating agents ⦁ (HMAs)⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ patients⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ acute⦁ ⦁ myeloid⦁ ⦁ leukemia⦁ ⦁ (AML)⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ high-risk⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndrome⦁ ⦁ (HR-MDS):⦁ ⦁ updated⦁ ⦁ results⦁ ⦁ from⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ 1b⦁ ⦁ study.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2020; 136(Supplement 1):1–2. Zeidan AM, Esteve ⦁ J, ⦁ Giagounidis A, Kim H-J, Miyazaki Y, Platzbecker U, et al. The STIMULUS program: clinical trials evaluating sabatolimab (MBG453) ⦁ combination⦁ ⦁ therapy⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ patients⦁ ⦁ (pts)⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ higher-risk⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes⦁ ⦁ (HR-MDS)⦁ ⦁ or⦁ ⦁ acute⦁ ⦁ myeloid⦁ ⦁ leukemia⦁ ⦁ (AML).⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2020;136(Supplement⦁ ⦁ 1):
45–6.
Bejar R, Papaemmanuil E, Haferlach T, Garcia-Manero G, Maciejewski JP, Sekeres MA, et al. Somatic mutations in MDS patients are associated with clinical ⦁ features and predict prognosis independent of the IPSS-R: analysis of combined datasets from the international working group for prognosis in MDS-molecular ⦁ committee.⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2015;126(23):907.
Bejar⦁ ⦁ R,⦁ ⦁ Stevenson⦁ ⦁ K,⦁ ⦁ Abdel-Wahab⦁ ⦁ O,⦁ ⦁ Galili⦁ ⦁ N,⦁ ⦁ Nilsson⦁ ⦁ B,⦁ ⦁ Garcia-Manero⦁ ⦁ G,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Clinical⦁ ⦁ effect⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ point⦁ ⦁ mutations⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes.⦁ ⦁ N⦁ ⦁ Engl⦁ ⦁ J⦁ ⦁ Med
2011;364(26):2496–506.
Haferlach⦁ ⦁ T,⦁ ⦁ Nagata⦁ ⦁ Y,⦁ ⦁ Grossmann⦁ ⦁ V,⦁ ⦁ Okuno⦁ ⦁ Y,⦁ ⦁ Bacher⦁ ⦁ U,⦁ ⦁ Nagae⦁ ⦁ G,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Landscape⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ genetic⦁ ⦁ lesions⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ 944⦁ ⦁ patients with⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic syndromes.
Leukemia 2014;28(2):241–7.
Papaemmanuil E, Gerstung M, Malcovati L, Tauro S, Gundem G, Van Loo P, et al. Clinical and biological implications of driver mutations in myelodysplastic ⦁ syndromes. Blood 2013;122(22):3616⦁ –⦁ 27. quiz⦁ ⦁ 99.
Medeiros BC, Fathi AT, DiNardo CD, Pollyea DA, Chan SM, Swords R. Isocitrate dehydrogenase mutations in myeloid malignancies. Leukemia 2017;31(2): ⦁ 272⦁ –⦁ 81.
DiNardo CD, Watts JM, Stein EM, de Botton S, Fathi AT, Prince GT, et al. Ivosidenib (AG-120) induced durable remissions and transfusion independence in ⦁ patients with IDH1-mutant relapsed or refractory myelodysplastic syndrome: results from a phase 1 dose escalation and expansion study. Blood 2018;132 ⦁ (Supplement⦁ ⦁ 1):1812.
Richard-Carpentier G, DeZern AE, Takahashi K, Konopleva MY, Loghavi S, Masarova L, et al. Preliminary results from the phase II study of the IDH2-inhibitor ⦁ enasidenib⦁ in patients with high-risk IDH2-mutated myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Blood⦁ ⦁ 2019;134(Supplement_1):678.
Cortes JE, Wang ES, Watts JM, Lee S, Baer MR, Dao K-H, et al. Olutasidenib (FT-2102) induces rapid remissions in patients with IDH1-mutant myelodysplastic ⦁ syndrome:⦁ ⦁ results⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ phase⦁ ⦁ 1/2⦁ ⦁ single⦁ ⦁ agent⦁ ⦁ treatment⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ combination⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ azacitidine.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2019;134(Supplement_1):674.
Swords⦁ ⦁ RT,⦁ ⦁ Erba⦁ ⦁ HP,⦁ ⦁ DeAngelo⦁ ⦁ DJ,⦁ ⦁ Bi⦁ x⦁ by⦁ ⦁ DL,⦁ ⦁ Altman⦁ ⦁ JK,⦁ ⦁ Maris⦁ ⦁ M,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Pevonedistat⦁ ⦁ (MLN4924),⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ First-in-Class⦁ ⦁ NEDD8-activating⦁ ⦁ enzyme⦁ ⦁ inhibitor,⦁ ⦁ in ⦁ patients⦁ with acute myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndromes: a phase 1 study. Br ⦁ J⦁ ⦁ Haematol 2015;169(4):534⦁ –⦁ 43.
Smith BN, Cojocari D, Purkal ⦁ JJ, ⦁ Arrate M, Ramsey HE, Leverson JD, et al. Pevonedistat, a Nedd-8 activating enzyme inhibitor, upregulates NOXA to increase ⦁ effectiveness⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ azacitidine⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ venetoclax⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ preclinical⦁ ⦁ models⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ acute⦁ ⦁ Myelogenous⦁ ⦁ leukemia.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2019;134(Supplement_1):1380.

Moyo⦁ TK, Watts JM, Skikne BS, Mendler JH, Klimek VM, Chen S-C, et al. Preliminary results from a phase II study of the combination of pevonedistat and ⦁ azacitidine⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ treatment⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ MDS⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ MDS/MPN⦁ ⦁ after⦁ ⦁ failure⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ DNA⦁ ⦁ methyltransferase⦁ ⦁ inhibition.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2019;134(Supplement_1):4236.
Silverman LR, Greenberg P, Raza A, Olnes MJ, Holland JF, Reddy P, et al. Clinical activity and safety of the dual pathway inhibitor rigosertib for higher⦁ ⦁ risk
myelodysplastic syndromes following DNA methyltransferase inhibitor therapy. Hematol Oncol 2015;33(2):57–66.
Garcia-Manero⦁ ⦁ G,⦁ ⦁ Fenau⦁ x⦁ ⦁ P,⦁ ⦁ Al-Kali⦁ ⦁ A,⦁ ⦁ Baer⦁ ⦁ MR,⦁ ⦁ Sekeres⦁ ⦁ MA,⦁ ⦁ Roboz⦁ ⦁ GJ,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Rigosertib⦁ ⦁ versus⦁ ⦁ best⦁ ⦁ supportive⦁ ⦁ care⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ patients⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ high-risk⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic
syndromes after failure of hypomethylating drugs (ONTIME): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17(4):496–508.
⦁ Oler A. Onconova therapeutics announces topline results from the pivotal phase 3 INSPIRE trial 2020 [cited 2020 12/12/2020]. Available from: ⦁ https:// ⦁ investor.onconova.com/news-releases/news-release-details/onconova-therapeutics-announces-topline-results-pivotal-phase-⦁ 3.
Bejar⦁ ⦁ R,⦁ ⦁ Lord⦁ ⦁ A,⦁ ⦁ Stevenson⦁ ⦁ K,⦁ ⦁ Bar-Natan⦁ ⦁ M,⦁ ⦁ Perez-Ladaga⦁ ⦁ A,⦁ ⦁ Zaneveld⦁ ⦁ J,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ TET2⦁ ⦁ mutations⦁ ⦁ predict⦁ ⦁ response⦁ ⦁ to⦁ ⦁ hypomethylating⦁ ⦁ agents⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic ⦁ syndrome⦁ patients. Blood⦁ ⦁ 2014;124(17):2705⦁ –⦁ 12.
Takahashi⦁ ⦁ K,⦁ ⦁ Wang⦁ ⦁ F,⦁ ⦁ Sahil⦁ ⦁ S,⦁ ⦁ Zhang⦁ ⦁ J,⦁ ⦁ Gumbs⦁ ⦁ C,⦁ ⦁ Issa⦁ ⦁ GC,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Presence⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ 4⦁ ⦁ or⦁ ⦁ more⦁ ⦁ driver⦁ ⦁ mutations⦁ ⦁ predicts⦁ ⦁ poor⦁ ⦁ response⦁ ⦁ to⦁ ⦁ hypomethylating⦁ ⦁ agent⦁ ⦁ (HMA) ⦁ therapy⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ poor⦁ ⦁ overall⦁ ⦁ survival⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ MDS.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2015;126(23):1663.
⦁ Nazha A, Sekeres MA, Bejar R, Rauh MJ, Othus M, Komrokji RS, et al. Genomic biomarkers to predict resistance to hypomethylating agents in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes using artificial intelligence. JCO Precis Oncol 2019;3. https://doi.org/10.1200/po.19.00119.
Winter⦁ ⦁ S,⦁ ⦁ Shoaie⦁ ⦁ S,⦁ ⦁ Kordasti⦁ ⦁ S,⦁ ⦁ Platzbecker⦁ ⦁ U.⦁ ⦁ Integrating⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ “⦁ Immunome⦁ “⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ stratification⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ future⦁ ⦁ clinical⦁ ⦁ trial⦁ ⦁ design. ⦁ J ⦁ Clin Oncol⦁ ⦁ 2020:JCO1901823.
Nagata⦁ ⦁ Y,⦁ ⦁ Zhao⦁ ⦁ R,⦁ ⦁ Awada⦁ ⦁ H,⦁ ⦁ Kerr⦁ ⦁ CM,⦁ ⦁ Mirzaev⦁ ⦁ I,⦁ ⦁ Kongkiatkamon⦁ ⦁ S,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Machine⦁ ⦁ learning⦁ ⦁ demonstrates⦁ ⦁ that⦁ ⦁ somatic⦁ ⦁ mutations⦁ ⦁ imprint⦁ ⦁ invariant⦁ ⦁ morphologic
features in myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood 2020;136(20):2249–62.
Lindsley⦁ ⦁ RC,⦁ ⦁ Saber⦁ ⦁ W,⦁ ⦁ Mar⦁ ⦁ BG,⦁ ⦁ Redd⦁ ⦁ R,⦁ ⦁ Wang⦁ ⦁ T,⦁ ⦁ Haagenson⦁ ⦁ MD,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ Prognostic⦁ ⦁ mutations⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndrome⦁ ⦁ after⦁ ⦁ stem-cell⦁ ⦁ transplantation.⦁ ⦁ N⦁ ⦁ Engl ⦁ J⦁ ⦁ Med⦁ ⦁ 2017;376(6):536⦁ –⦁ 47.
Bernard E, Nannya Y, Hasserjian RP, Devlin SM, Tuechler H, Medina-Martinez JS, et al. Implications of TP53 allelic state for genome stability, clinical ⦁ presentation⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ outcomes⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes.⦁ ⦁ Nat⦁ ⦁ Med⦁ ⦁ 2020.
Montalban-Bravo G, Kanagal-Shamanna R, Benton CB, Class CA, Chien KS, Sasaki K, et al. Genomic context and TP53 allele frequency define clinical outcomes ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ TP53-mutated⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes.⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ Adv⦁ ⦁ 2020;4(3):482⦁ –⦁ 95.
Sallman DA, DeZern AE, Garcia-Manero G, Steensma DP, Roboz GJ, Sekeres MA, et al. Phase 2 results of APR-246 and azacitidine (AZA) in patients with TP53 ⦁ mutant⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes⦁ ⦁ (MDS)⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ oligoblastic⦁ ⦁ acute⦁ ⦁ myeloid⦁ ⦁ leukemia⦁ ⦁ (AML).⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2019;134(Supplement_1):676.
Cluzeau⦁ ⦁ T,⦁ ⦁ Sebert⦁ ⦁ M,⦁ ⦁ Rah⦁ m⦁ ´⦁ e⦁ ⦁ R,⦁ ⦁ Cuzzubbo⦁ ⦁ S,⦁ ⦁ Walter-petrich⦁ ⦁ A,⦁ ⦁ Lehmann⦁ ⦁ che⦁ ⦁ J,⦁ ⦁ et⦁ ⦁ al.⦁ ⦁ APR-246⦁ ⦁ combined⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ azacitidine⦁ ⦁ (AZA)⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ TP53⦁ ⦁ mutated⦁ ⦁ myelodysplastic
syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). A phase 2 study by the Groupe francophone Des My´elodysplasies (GFM). Blood 2019;134(Supplement_1): 677.
Sallman DA, Komrokji RS, Sweet KL, Mo Q, McGraw KL, Duong VH, et al. A phase 2 trial of the oral smoothened inhibitor glasdegib in refractory ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes⦁ ⦁ (MDS).⦁ ⦁ Leuk⦁ ⦁ Res⦁ ⦁ 2019;81:56⦁ –⦁ 61.
Steensma DP, Wermke M, Klimek VM, Greenberg PL, Font P, Komrokji RS, et al. Results of a clinical trial of H3B-8800, a splicing modulator, in patients with ⦁ myelodysplastic⦁ ⦁ syndromes⦁ ⦁ (MDS),⦁ ⦁ acute⦁ ⦁ myeloid⦁ ⦁ leukemia⦁ ⦁ (AML)⦁ ⦁ or⦁ ⦁ chronic⦁ ⦁ myelomonocytic⦁ ⦁ leukemia⦁ ⦁ (CMML).⦁ ⦁ Blood⦁ ⦁ 2019;134(Supplement_1):673.