Olatoyosi Odenike

The classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias was last updated in 2016 within a collaboration between the World Health Organization (WHO), the Society for Hematopathology, and the European Association for Haematopathology. This collaboration was primarily based on input from a clinical advisory committees (CACs) composed of pathologists, hematologists, oncologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians from around the world. The recent advances in our understanding of the biology of hematologic malignancies, the experience with the use of the 2016 WHO classification in clinical practice, and the results of clinical trials have indicated the need for further revising and updating the classification. As a continuation of this CAC-based process, the authors, a group with expertise in the clinical, pathologic, and genetic aspects of these disorders, developed the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias. Using a multiparameter approach, the main objective of the consensus process was the definition of real disease entities, including the introduction of new entities and refined criteria for existing diagnostic categories, based on accumulated data. The ICC is aimed at facilitating diagnosis and prognostication of these neoplasms, improving treatment of affected patients, and allowing the design of innovative clinical trials.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation is increasingly utilized in older adults. This study prospectively evaluated the prognostic utility of geriatric assessment domains prior to allogeneic transplantation in recipients aged 50 years and over. Geriatric assessment was performed prior to transplant, and included validated measures across domains of function and disability, comorbidity, frailty, mental health, nutritional status, and systemic inflammation. A total of 203 patients completed geriatric assessment and underwent transplant. Median age was 58 years (range 50-73). After adjusting for established prognostic factors, limitations in instrumental activities of daily living (HR 2.38, 95%CI: 1.59-3.56; P<0.001), slow walk speed (HR 1.80, 95%CI: 1.14-2.83; P=0.01), high comorbidity by hematopoietic cell transplantation-specific comorbidity index (HR 1.56, 95%CI: 1.07-2.28; P=0.02), low mental health by short-form-36 mental component summary (HR 1.67, 95%CI: 1.13-2.48; P=0.01), and elevated serum C-reactive protein (HR 2.51, 95%CI: 1.54-4.09; P<0.001) were significantly associated with inferior overall survival. These associations were more pronounced in the cohort 60 years and over. Geriatric assessment measures confer independent prognostic utility in older allogeneic transplant recipients. Implementation of geriatric assessment prior to allogeneic transplantation may aid appropriate selection of older adults.

Purpose Azacitidine is standard, first-line therapy in higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Whether azacitidine-based combinations with lenalidomide or vorinostat produce superior overall response rates (ORRs) to azacitidine is not known. Patients and Methods North American Intergroup Study S1117 is a phase II/III trial that randomly assigned patients with higher-risk MDS and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) 1:1:1 to azacitidine (75 mg/m 2 /day on days 1 to 7 of a 28-day cycle); azacitidine plus lenalidomide (10 mg/day on days 1 to 21); or azacitidine plus vorinostat (300 mg twice daily on days 3 to 9). The primary phase II end point was improved ORR. Results Of 277 patients from 90 centers, 92 received azacitidine, 93 received azacitidine plus lenalidomide, and 92 received azacitidine plus vorinostat. Median age was 70 years (range, 28 to 93 years), 85 patients (31%) were female, and 53 patients (19%) had CMML. Serious adverse events were similar across arms, although combination-arm patients were more likely to undergo nonprotocol-defined dose modifications ( P &lt; .001).With a median follow-up of 23 months (range, 1 to 43 months), the ORR was 38% for patients receiving azacitidine, 49% for azacitidine plus lenalidomide ( P = .14 v azacitidine), and 27% for azacitidine plus vorinostat ( P = .16 v azacitidine). For patients with CMML, ORR was higher for azacitidine plus lenalidomide versus azacitidine (68% v 28%, P = .02) but similar for all arms across cytogenetic subgroups, as was remission duration and overall survival. ORR was higher with mutations in DNMT3A and lower for SRSF2, whereas ORR duration improved with fewer mutations. Lenalidomide dose reduction was associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.30; P = .05). Conclusion Patients with higher-risk MDS treated with azacitidine-based combinations had similar ORR to azacitidine monotherapy, although patients with CMML benefitted from azacitidine plus lenalidomide. The efficacy of combination regimens may have been affected by dose modifications.