Venetoclax and Hypomethylating Agent in Previously Untreated Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes and Genotype Signatures for Response and Prognosis: A Real-World Study

IF 10.1 1区 医学 Q1 HEMATOLOGY
Jing Wang, Zhijian Fang, Siyi Yang, Kexin Yan, Jingjing Zhang, Yanfang Yu, Yaoliang Ren, Hao Jiang, Jinsong Jia, Jianlin Chen, Botao Li, Yingjun Chang, Xiaosu Zhao, Xiaojun Huang
{"title":"Venetoclax and Hypomethylating Agent in Previously Untreated Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes and Genotype Signatures for Response and Prognosis: A Real-World Study","authors":"Jing Wang, Zhijian Fang, Siyi Yang, Kexin Yan, Jingjing Zhang, Yanfang Yu, Yaoliang Ren, Hao Jiang, Jinsong Jia, Jianlin Chen, Botao Li, Yingjun Chang, Xiaosu Zhao, Xiaojun Huang","doi":"10.1002/ajh.27532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), as defined by the revised international prognostic scoring system (IPSS-R), requires more aggressive treatment. Despite the use of hypomethylating agents (HMAs), response rates remain low, underscoring the need for more effective therapies. Venetoclax is a potent, orally bioavailable inhibitor of the B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) protein, which acts synergistically with HMAs to target malignant myeloid cells. The combination of venetoclax and HMAs has been approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) [<span>1</span>]. Clinical trials have shown that venetoclax combined with HMAs exhibits efficacy not only in newly diagnosed patients but also in those with relapsed or refractory MDS [<span>2, 3</span>]. However, real-world data on this combination remain limited, particularly in previously untreated high-risk MDS populations, where genotype signatures for response and prognosis are not yet fully elucidated. Our study aims to address this gap by providing real-world evidence on the efficacy, safety, and genotype-based outcomes of venetoclax plus HMA therapy in this patient population.</p>\n<p>This retrospective, real-world study was conducted at Peking University People's Hospital and Beijing Qinghe Hospital, analyzing the data from a cohort of previously untreated patients with higher-risk MDS who were administered venetoclax in combination with a HMA between January 2020 and February 2024. Eligible participants were adults aged 18 years or older, with a morphological diagnosis of MDS as per the 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification, and were stratified as higher-risk according to the IPSS-R (score &gt; 3.5), with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2. Patients were excluded if they had incomplete treatment response data, a diagnosis of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), or therapy-related MDS. Additionally, patients who were eligible for transplantation were typically not considered for venetoclax and HMA treatment at our center, but those scheduled for transplantation more than 2 months later could receive venetoclax and HMAs while waiting for transplantation if marrow blasts were ≥ 5%. Approval was obtained from the institutional ethics review committee.</p>\n<p>Baseline data, including demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment patterns, were extracted from medical records. Venetoclax was given at 400 mg daily on Days 1–14 of a 28-day cycle, while decitabine (20 mg/m<sup>2</sup>, d1-5) or azacitidine (75 mg/m<sup>2</sup>, d1-7) were administered as per standard protocols. Effectiveness outcomes included the objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), and event-free survival (EFS), with responses assessed after each treatment cycle according to the International Working Group (IWG) 2006 criteria. EFS was defined as the time to relapse, AML progression, or death, and overall survival (OS) was time to death from any cause. Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 22.0. ORR and CR were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method, and survival analyses were estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on key factors such as age, IPSS-R, and gene mutations. Logistic and Cox regression were used to identify factors influencing outcomes, with multivariate analyses including variables with a <i>p</i> value &lt; 0.2 from univariate analysis.</p>\n<p>A total of 103 previously untreated higher-risk MDS patients treated with venetoclax and HMAs were included. The median age was 61 years (range: 18–77). The median IPSS-R score was 6.0, with 50.5% classified as high risk and 35.0% as very high risk. ASXL1 mutations were found in 32.2%, followed by RUNX1 (18.9%), U2AF1 (14.4%), and DNMT3A (12.2%). Monoallelic TP53 mutations were present in 13.3%, and biallelic in 1.1% (Table S1). Transplanted patients were generally younger, with a median age of 48 years compared with 63 years in nontransplanted patients (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). A higher proportion of transplanted patients were diagnosed with intermediate blast phase 2 (IB2) (83.3% vs. 54.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.022). Key molecular features, including TP53, RUNX1, and NPM1 mutations, were similar between the two subgroups (Table S2). The median time to transplantation was 4.0 months (range: 0.9–64.9).</p>\n<p>Of the 103 patients, 97 (94.2%) were treated with decitabine and 6 (5.8%) with azacitidine, with a median of 4 treatment cycles (range: 1–14). By the cutoff date of May 27, 2024, 59 patients had discontinued treatment, primarily due to stem cell transplantation (50.8%) and disease progression (30.5%). Other reasons included noncompliance (6.8%), adverse events (AEs, 5.1%), early death from pulmonary infection (3.4%), and stable disease after four cycles (3.4%).</p>\n<p>The ORR was 79.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 70.5–86.9), with a CR rate of 34.0% and marrow complete response (mCR) of 28.2%. After one treatment cycle, the ORR was 68.9%, with a CR of 7.8% and mCR of 33.0%. At a median follow-up of 23.3 months, 27 patients progressed to AML, with a median time to progression of 6.3 months. The median EFS was 14.7 months, and the 1-, 2-, and 3-year EFS rates were 60.5%, 42.1%, and 42.1%, respectively (Figure S1A). Twenty-seven patients (26.2%) died, primarily from disease progression (55.6%) and pulmonary infections (37.0%). The median OS was not reached (NR), with 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates of 87.1%, 67.1%, and 58.8%, respectively (Figure S1B).</p>\n<p>Patients with TP53 mutations had a significantly lower CR rate compared with those without (7.7% vs. 41.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.027), while those with NPM1 mutations had a higher CR rate (87.5% vs. 31.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.003). TP53-mutated patients had shorter median EFS (6.0 vs. 15.7 months, <i>p</i> = 0.015) and OS (21.3 months vs. NR, <i>p</i> = 0.027). Achieving a response after one cycle or as best response was associated with significantly longer EFS and OS (Table 1, Figure S1C–J). There was no significant OS difference between transplanted and nontransplanted patients (NR vs. 26.8 months, <i>p</i> = 0.137). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates for transplanted patients were 89.7%, 77.0%, and 72.2%, respectively, compared with 86.0%, 60.8%, and 49.6% for nontransplanted patients (Figure S1K). Causes of death differed, with disease progression being more common in nontransplanted patients (<i>n</i> = 14, 70.0%), while pulmonary infection was the leading cause in transplanted patients (<i>n</i> = 5, 71.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.027). The restricted mean survival time analysis showed growing trend of difference between the two groups over time (Table S3).</p>\n<div>\n<header><span>TABLE 1. </span>Treatment response and subgroup analysis.</header>\n<div tabindex=\"0\">\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Subgroup</th>\n<th>Number</th>\n<th>ORR, <i>n</i> (%)</th>\n<th>\n<i>p</i>\n</th>\n<th>CR, <i>n</i> (%)</th>\n<th>\n<i>p</i>\n</th>\n<th>EFS, months, median (95% CI)</th>\n<th>Log-rank <i>p</i></th>\n<th>OS, months, median (95% CI)</th>\n<th>Log-rank <i>p</i></th>\n</tr>\n</thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Total</td>\n<td>103</td>\n<td>82 (79.6)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>8 (7.8)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14.667 (11.533-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (NE-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Age (years)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.435</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.400</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.869</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.409</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">&lt; 65</td>\n<td>71</td>\n<td>58 (81.7)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>26 (36.6)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14.667 (12.167-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (25.067-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">≥ 65</td>\n<td>32</td>\n<td>24 (75.0)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>9 (28.1)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (7.633-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Sex</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.376</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.183</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.483</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.776</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Female</td>\n<td>38</td>\n<td>32 (84.2)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>16 (42.1)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14.667 (12.167-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (21.6-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Male</td>\n<td>65</td>\n<td>50 (76.9)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>19 (29.2)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14.667 (10.367-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (26.333-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Baseline bone marrow blasts</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.075</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.495</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.539</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.674</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">≤ 10%</td>\n<td>46</td>\n<td>33 (71.7)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14 (30.4)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (9.567-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (22.667-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">&gt; 10%</td>\n<td>57</td>\n<td>49 (86.0)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>21 (36.8)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14.667 (13.167-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (25.833-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>IPSS-R</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.944</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.368</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.081</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.090</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Intermediate</td>\n<td>15</td>\n<td>12 (80.0)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>6 (40.0)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (10.6-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">High</td>\n<td>52</td>\n<td>42 (80.8)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>20 (38.5)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (14.533-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Very high</td>\n<td>36</td>\n<td>28 (77.8)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>9 (25.0)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>11.533 (7.133–18.933)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>26.333 (22.3-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>IPSS-M</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.453</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.729</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.801</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.118</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Moderate and high</td>\n<td>28</td>\n<td>24 (85.7)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>11 (39.3)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (10.367-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Very high</td>\n<td>62</td>\n<td>49 (79.0)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>22 (35.5)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14.667 (12.167-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NE (22.667-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Cytogenetics category</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.203</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.027</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.032</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.056</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Good</td>\n<td>52</td>\n<td>44 (84.6)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>23 (44.2)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>Not R</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Very poor to intermediate</td>\n<td>51</td>\n<td>38 (74.5)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>12 (23.5)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>10.600 (7.133-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>26.333 (21.300-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>TP53 mutation</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.258</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.027</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.015</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.027</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Unmutated</td>\n<td>77</td>\n<td>64 (83.1)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>32 (41.6)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>15.700 (13.167 ~ NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Mutated</td>\n<td>13</td>\n<td>9 (69.2)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>1 (7.7)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>5.967 (3.300 ~ NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>21.300 (12.000-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>ASXL1</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.783</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.218</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.374</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.332</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Unmutated</td>\n<td>61</td>\n<td>49 (80.3)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>25 (41.0)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (10.6-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Mutated</td>\n<td>29</td>\n<td>24 (82.8)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>8 (27.6)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>13.167 (9.567-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>25.067 (18.967-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>RUNX1</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.511</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.212</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.134</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.521</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Unmutated</td>\n<td>73</td>\n<td>58 (79.5)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>29 (39.7)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (10.6-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Mutated</td>\n<td>17</td>\n<td>15 (88.2)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>4 (23.5)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14.533 (5.033-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>25.833 (22.3-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>U2AF1</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>&gt; 0.999</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.761</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.679</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.439</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Unmutated</td>\n<td>77</td>\n<td>62 (80.5)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>29 (37.7)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14.667 (11.533-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NE (25.833-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Mutated</td>\n<td>13</td>\n<td>11 (84.6)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>4 (30.8)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14.533 (7-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>SRSF2</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.392</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>&gt; 0.999</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.540</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.263</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Unmutated</td>\n<td>80</td>\n<td>66 (82.5)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>29 (36.3)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14.667 (10.6 ~ NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Mutated</td>\n<td>10</td>\n<td>7 (70.0)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>4 (40.0)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>11.533 (11.533-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>22.667 (22.667-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>DNMT3A</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>&gt; 0.999</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>&gt; 0.999</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.756</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.386</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Unmutated</td>\n<td>79</td>\n<td>64 (81.0)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>29 (36.7)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14.667 (10.6-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Mutated</td>\n<td>11</td>\n<td>9 (81.8)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>4 (36.4)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14.533 (11.533-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>22.667 (21.6-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>NPM1</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.344</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.003</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.183</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.095</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Unmutated</td>\n<td>82</td>\n<td>65 (79.3)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>26 (31.7)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14.533 (10.6-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (25.067-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Mutated</td>\n<td>8</td>\n<td>8 (100.0)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>7 (87.5)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (9.133-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>SETBP1</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.171</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.250</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.134</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.695</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Unmutated</td>\n<td>82</td>\n<td>68 (82.9)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>32 (39.0)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>15.7 (12.167-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Mutated</td>\n<td>8</td>\n<td>5 (62.5)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>1 (12.5)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>10.367 (10.367-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>22.667 (22.667-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>SF3B1</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>&gt; 0.999</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.458</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.197</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.595</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Unmutated</td>\n<td>82</td>\n<td>66 (80.5)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>29 (35.4)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14.533 (10.6-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Mutated</td>\n<td>8</td>\n<td>7 (87.5)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>4 (50.0)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (17.267-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Best response of OR</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>&lt; 0.001</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.001</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">No</td>\n<td>21</td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>5.967 (3.167-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>18.967 (13.033-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Yes</td>\n<td>82</td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (14.667-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Best response of CR</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>&lt; 0.001</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.001</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">No</td>\n<td>68</td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>10.6 (7.133–18.933)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>25.067 (21.3-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Yes</td>\n<td>35</td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>OR after one treatment cycle</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>&lt; 0.001</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.002</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">No</td>\n<td>32</td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>7.133 (5.1-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>21.3 (14.3-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Yes</td>\n<td>71</td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (14.667-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>CR after one treatment cycle</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.217</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.075</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">No</td>\n<td>95</td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>14.667 (11.533-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR (25.833-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Yes</td>\n<td>8</td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Transplantation</td>\n<td></td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>0.137</td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">No</td>\n<td>73</td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>26.833 (22.667-NE)</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding-left:2em;\">Yes</td>\n<td>30</td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>\n<b>—</b>\n</td>\n<td></td>\n<td>NR</td>\n<td></td>\n</tr>\n</tbody>\n</table>\n</div>\n<div>\n<ul>\n<li> Abbreviations: CR: complete response; EFS: event-free survival; IPSS-M: molecular international prognostic scoring system; IPSS-R: revised international prognostic scoring system; NE: not estimated; NR: not reached; ORR: objective response; OS: overall survival. </li>\n</ul>\n</div>\n<div></div>\n</div>\n<p>No factors were independently associated with ORR (all <i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). TP53 (hazard ratio [HR] = 4.356, 95% CI: 1.596–11.892, <i>p</i> = 0.004) and RUNX1 mutations (HR = 4.365, 95% CI: 1.675–11.376, <i>p</i> = 0.003) were independent risk factors for shorter EFS, while achieving an objective response was linked to better EFS (HR = 0.193, 95% CI: 0.045–0.829, <i>p</i> = 0.027). For OS, only achieving an objective response was independently associated with improved survival (HR = 0.221, 95% CI: 0.084–0.581, <i>p</i> = 0.002) (Table S4).</p>\n<p>The most common AEs were anemia (98.1%; grade ≥ 3: 55.3%), neutropenia (98.1%; grade ≥ 3: 53.3%), thrombocytopenia (97.1%; grade ≥ 3: 49.5%), and myelosuppression (86.4%; grade ≥ 3: 47.6%) (Table S5).</p>\n<p>This study shows that RUNX1 mutations are associated with poorer response, EFS, and OS in higher-risk MDS patients treated with venetoclax and HMAs, consistent with prior findings [<span>4</span>]. Although the ORR in TP53-mutated patients was 69.2%, the CR rate was only 7.7%, with significantly shorter survival, highlighting the limited benefit of venetoclax plus HMAs in this subgroup. The prognostic significance of ASXL1 mutations in MDS remains an area of active investigation, with conflicting findings reported in different studies. Notably, prior studies [<span>5, 6</span>] involving venetoclax plus HMAs in MDS populations showed improved outcomes in ASXL1-mutated patients. However, differences in patient characteristics, such as a higher proportion of MDS with excess blasts or relapsed/refractory cases, and the specific focus on comparing venetoclax plus HMA to HMA alone, may explain the discrepancies with our findings, where ASXL1 mutations were not associated with response or survival.</p>\n<p>The impact of transplantation on patient prognosis was assessed in this study. Although the 3-year OS rate favored transplanted patients (72.2% vs. 49.6%), this difference was not statistically significant, likely due to the small sample size and baseline disparities, such as younger age among transplanted patients. Non-relapse mortality was the main cause of death in transplanted patients, while disease progression dominated in nontransplanted patients. Most transplant-related events occurred early, likely contributing to the observed survival trend. Despite these limitations, our findings suggest that venetoclax plus HMA is an effective alternative for patients ineligible for immediate transplantation.</p>\n<p>This study has several limitations. The small sample size and short follow-up may limit generalizability and underestimate long-term outcomes. The absence of a control group hinders direct comparison with other treatments, and baseline differences between transplanted and nontransplanted patients may introduce bias.</p>\n<p>In conclusion, venetoclax plus HMAs shows promise in treating untreated higher-risk MDS, with favorable response rates and a manageable safety profile. This study identified genotype signatures and response as survival predictors, but further validation through clinical trials is required to strengthen these results.</p>","PeriodicalId":7724,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hematology","volume":"27 5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hematology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.27532","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), as defined by the revised international prognostic scoring system (IPSS-R), requires more aggressive treatment. Despite the use of hypomethylating agents (HMAs), response rates remain low, underscoring the need for more effective therapies. Venetoclax is a potent, orally bioavailable inhibitor of the B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) protein, which acts synergistically with HMAs to target malignant myeloid cells. The combination of venetoclax and HMAs has been approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) [1]. Clinical trials have shown that venetoclax combined with HMAs exhibits efficacy not only in newly diagnosed patients but also in those with relapsed or refractory MDS [2, 3]. However, real-world data on this combination remain limited, particularly in previously untreated high-risk MDS populations, where genotype signatures for response and prognosis are not yet fully elucidated. Our study aims to address this gap by providing real-world evidence on the efficacy, safety, and genotype-based outcomes of venetoclax plus HMA therapy in this patient population.

This retrospective, real-world study was conducted at Peking University People's Hospital and Beijing Qinghe Hospital, analyzing the data from a cohort of previously untreated patients with higher-risk MDS who were administered venetoclax in combination with a HMA between January 2020 and February 2024. Eligible participants were adults aged 18 years or older, with a morphological diagnosis of MDS as per the 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification, and were stratified as higher-risk according to the IPSS-R (score > 3.5), with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2. Patients were excluded if they had incomplete treatment response data, a diagnosis of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), or therapy-related MDS. Additionally, patients who were eligible for transplantation were typically not considered for venetoclax and HMA treatment at our center, but those scheduled for transplantation more than 2 months later could receive venetoclax and HMAs while waiting for transplantation if marrow blasts were ≥ 5%. Approval was obtained from the institutional ethics review committee.

Baseline data, including demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment patterns, were extracted from medical records. Venetoclax was given at 400 mg daily on Days 1–14 of a 28-day cycle, while decitabine (20 mg/m2, d1-5) or azacitidine (75 mg/m2, d1-7) were administered as per standard protocols. Effectiveness outcomes included the objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), and event-free survival (EFS), with responses assessed after each treatment cycle according to the International Working Group (IWG) 2006 criteria. EFS was defined as the time to relapse, AML progression, or death, and overall survival (OS) was time to death from any cause. Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 22.0. ORR and CR were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method, and survival analyses were estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on key factors such as age, IPSS-R, and gene mutations. Logistic and Cox regression were used to identify factors influencing outcomes, with multivariate analyses including variables with a p value < 0.2 from univariate analysis.

A total of 103 previously untreated higher-risk MDS patients treated with venetoclax and HMAs were included. The median age was 61 years (range: 18–77). The median IPSS-R score was 6.0, with 50.5% classified as high risk and 35.0% as very high risk. ASXL1 mutations were found in 32.2%, followed by RUNX1 (18.9%), U2AF1 (14.4%), and DNMT3A (12.2%). Monoallelic TP53 mutations were present in 13.3%, and biallelic in 1.1% (Table S1). Transplanted patients were generally younger, with a median age of 48 years compared with 63 years in nontransplanted patients (p < 0.001). A higher proportion of transplanted patients were diagnosed with intermediate blast phase 2 (IB2) (83.3% vs. 54.8%, p = 0.022). Key molecular features, including TP53, RUNX1, and NPM1 mutations, were similar between the two subgroups (Table S2). The median time to transplantation was 4.0 months (range: 0.9–64.9).

Of the 103 patients, 97 (94.2%) were treated with decitabine and 6 (5.8%) with azacitidine, with a median of 4 treatment cycles (range: 1–14). By the cutoff date of May 27, 2024, 59 patients had discontinued treatment, primarily due to stem cell transplantation (50.8%) and disease progression (30.5%). Other reasons included noncompliance (6.8%), adverse events (AEs, 5.1%), early death from pulmonary infection (3.4%), and stable disease after four cycles (3.4%).

The ORR was 79.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 70.5–86.9), with a CR rate of 34.0% and marrow complete response (mCR) of 28.2%. After one treatment cycle, the ORR was 68.9%, with a CR of 7.8% and mCR of 33.0%. At a median follow-up of 23.3 months, 27 patients progressed to AML, with a median time to progression of 6.3 months. The median EFS was 14.7 months, and the 1-, 2-, and 3-year EFS rates were 60.5%, 42.1%, and 42.1%, respectively (Figure S1A). Twenty-seven patients (26.2%) died, primarily from disease progression (55.6%) and pulmonary infections (37.0%). The median OS was not reached (NR), with 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates of 87.1%, 67.1%, and 58.8%, respectively (Figure S1B).

Patients with TP53 mutations had a significantly lower CR rate compared with those without (7.7% vs. 41.6%, p = 0.027), while those with NPM1 mutations had a higher CR rate (87.5% vs. 31.7%, p = 0.003). TP53-mutated patients had shorter median EFS (6.0 vs. 15.7 months, p = 0.015) and OS (21.3 months vs. NR, p = 0.027). Achieving a response after one cycle or as best response was associated with significantly longer EFS and OS (Table 1, Figure S1C–J). There was no significant OS difference between transplanted and nontransplanted patients (NR vs. 26.8 months, p = 0.137). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates for transplanted patients were 89.7%, 77.0%, and 72.2%, respectively, compared with 86.0%, 60.8%, and 49.6% for nontransplanted patients (Figure S1K). Causes of death differed, with disease progression being more common in nontransplanted patients (n = 14, 70.0%), while pulmonary infection was the leading cause in transplanted patients (n = 5, 71.4%, p = 0.027). The restricted mean survival time analysis showed growing trend of difference between the two groups over time (Table S3).

TABLE 1. Treatment response and subgroup analysis.
Subgroup Number ORR, n (%) p CR, n (%) p EFS, months, median (95% CI) Log-rank p OS, months, median (95% CI) Log-rank p
Total 103 82 (79.6) 8 (7.8) 14.667 (11.533-NE) NR (NE-NE)
Age (years) 0.435 0.400 0.869 0.409
< 65 71 58 (81.7) 26 (36.6) 14.667 (12.167-NE) NR (25.067-NE)
≥ 65 32 24 (75.0) 9 (28.1) NR (7.633-NE) NR
Sex 0.376 0.183 0.483 0.776
Female 38 32 (84.2) 16 (42.1) 14.667 (12.167-NE) NR (21.6-NE)
Male 65 50 (76.9) 19 (29.2) 14.667 (10.367-NE) NR (26.333-NE)
Baseline bone marrow blasts 0.075 0.495 0.539 0.674
≤ 10% 46 33 (71.7) 14 (30.4) NR (9.567-NE) NR (22.667-NE)
> 10% 57 49 (86.0) 21 (36.8) 14.667 (13.167-NE) NR (25.833-NE)
IPSS-R 0.944 0.368 0.081 0.090
Intermediate 15 12 (80.0) 6 (40.0) NR (10.6-NE) NR
High 52 42 (80.8) 20 (38.5) NR (14.533-NE) NR
Very high 36 28 (77.8) 9 (25.0) 11.533 (7.133–18.933) 26.333 (22.3-NE)
IPSS-M 0.453 0.729 0.801 0.118
Moderate and high 28 24 (85.7) 11 (39.3) NR (10.367-NE) NR
Very high 62 49 (79.0) 22 (35.5) 14.667 (12.167-NE) NE (22.667-NE)
Cytogenetics category 0.203 0.027 0.032 0.056
Good 52 44 (84.6) 23 (44.2) Not R NR
Very poor to intermediate 51 38 (74.5) 12 (23.5) 10.600 (7.133-NE) 26.333 (21.300-NE)
TP53 mutation 0.258 0.027 0.015 0.027
Unmutated 77 64 (83.1) 32 (41.6) 15.700 (13.167 ~ NE) NR
Mutated 13 9 (69.2) 1 (7.7) 5.967 (3.300 ~ NE) 21.300 (12.000-NE)
ASXL1 0.783 0.218 0.374 0.332
Unmutated 61 49 (80.3) 25 (41.0) NR (10.6-NE) NR
Mutated 29 24 (82.8) 8 (27.6) 13.167 (9.567-NE) 25.067 (18.967-NE)
RUNX1 0.511 0.212 0.134 0.521
Unmutated 73 58 (79.5) 29 (39.7) NR (10.6-NE) NR
Mutated 17 15 (88.2) 4 (23.5) 14.533 (5.033-NE) 25.833 (22.3-NE)
U2AF1 > 0.999 0.761 0.679 0.439
Unmutated 77 62 (80.5) 29 (37.7) 14.667 (11.533-NE) NE (25.833-NE)
Mutated 13 11 (84.6) 4 (30.8) 14.533 (7-NE) NR
SRSF2 0.392 > 0.999 0.540 0.263
Unmutated 80 66 (82.5) 29 (36.3) 14.667 (10.6 ~ NE) NR
Mutated 10 7 (70.0) 4 (40.0) 11.533 (11.533-NE) 22.667 (22.667-NE)
DNMT3A > 0.999 > 0.999 0.756 0.386
Unmutated 79 64 (81.0) 29 (36.7) 14.667 (10.6-NE) NR
Mutated 11 9 (81.8) 4 (36.4) 14.533 (11.533-NE) 22.667 (21.6-NE)
NPM1 0.344 0.003 0.183 0.095
Unmutated 82 65 (79.3) 26 (31.7) 14.533 (10.6-NE) NR (25.067-NE)
Mutated 8 8 (100.0) 7 (87.5) NR (9.133-NE) NR
SETBP1 0.171 0.250 0.134 0.695
Unmutated 82 68 (82.9) 32 (39.0) 15.7 (12.167-NE) NR
Mutated 8 5 (62.5) 1 (12.5) 10.367 (10.367-NE) 22.667 (22.667-NE)
SF3B1 > 0.999 0.458 0.197 0.595
Unmutated 82 66 (80.5) 29 (35.4) 14.533 (10.6-NE) NR
Mutated 8 7 (87.5) 4 (50.0) NR NR (17.267-NE)
Best response of OR < 0.001 0.001
No 21 5.967 (3.167-NE) 18.967 (13.033-NE)
Yes 82 NR (14.667-NE) NR
Best response of CR < 0.001 0.001
No 68 10.6 (7.133–18.933) 25.067 (21.3-NE)
Yes 35 NR NR
OR after one treatment cycle < 0.001 0.002
No 32 7.133 (5.1-NE) 21.3 (14.3-NE)
Yes 71 NR (14.667-NE) NR
CR after one treatment cycle 0.217 0.075
No 95 14.667 (11.533-NE) NR (25.833-NE)
Yes 8 NR NR
Transplantation 0.137
No 73 26.833 (22.667-NE)
Yes 30 NR
  • Abbreviations: CR: complete response; EFS: event-free survival; IPSS-M: molecular international prognostic scoring system; IPSS-R: revised international prognostic scoring system; NE: not estimated; NR: not reached; ORR: objective response; OS: overall survival.

No factors were independently associated with ORR (all p > 0.05). TP53 (hazard ratio [HR] = 4.356, 95% CI: 1.596–11.892, p = 0.004) and RUNX1 mutations (HR = 4.365, 95% CI: 1.675–11.376, p = 0.003) were independent risk factors for shorter EFS, while achieving an objective response was linked to better EFS (HR = 0.193, 95% CI: 0.045–0.829, p = 0.027). For OS, only achieving an objective response was independently associated with improved survival (HR = 0.221, 95% CI: 0.084–0.581, p = 0.002) (Table S4).

The most common AEs were anemia (98.1%; grade ≥ 3: 55.3%), neutropenia (98.1%; grade ≥ 3: 53.3%), thrombocytopenia (97.1%; grade ≥ 3: 49.5%), and myelosuppression (86.4%; grade ≥ 3: 47.6%) (Table S5).

This study shows that RUNX1 mutations are associated with poorer response, EFS, and OS in higher-risk MDS patients treated with venetoclax and HMAs, consistent with prior findings [4]. Although the ORR in TP53-mutated patients was 69.2%, the CR rate was only 7.7%, with significantly shorter survival, highlighting the limited benefit of venetoclax plus HMAs in this subgroup. The prognostic significance of ASXL1 mutations in MDS remains an area of active investigation, with conflicting findings reported in different studies. Notably, prior studies [5, 6] involving venetoclax plus HMAs in MDS populations showed improved outcomes in ASXL1-mutated patients. However, differences in patient characteristics, such as a higher proportion of MDS with excess blasts or relapsed/refractory cases, and the specific focus on comparing venetoclax plus HMA to HMA alone, may explain the discrepancies with our findings, where ASXL1 mutations were not associated with response or survival.

The impact of transplantation on patient prognosis was assessed in this study. Although the 3-year OS rate favored transplanted patients (72.2% vs. 49.6%), this difference was not statistically significant, likely due to the small sample size and baseline disparities, such as younger age among transplanted patients. Non-relapse mortality was the main cause of death in transplanted patients, while disease progression dominated in nontransplanted patients. Most transplant-related events occurred early, likely contributing to the observed survival trend. Despite these limitations, our findings suggest that venetoclax plus HMA is an effective alternative for patients ineligible for immediate transplantation.

This study has several limitations. The small sample size and short follow-up may limit generalizability and underestimate long-term outcomes. The absence of a control group hinders direct comparison with other treatments, and baseline differences between transplanted and nontransplanted patients may introduce bias.

In conclusion, venetoclax plus HMAs shows promise in treating untreated higher-risk MDS, with favorable response rates and a manageable safety profile. This study identified genotype signatures and response as survival predictors, but further validation through clinical trials is required to strengthen these results.

Venetoclax 和低甲基化药物在既往未接受过治疗的高风险骨髓增生异常综合征中的应用以及反应和预后的基因型特征:真实世界研究
根据修订版国际预后评分系统(IPSS-R)的定义,骨髓增生异常综合征(MDS)的风险较高,需要更积极的治疗。尽管使用了低甲基化药物(HMAs),但反应率仍然很低,这凸显了对更有效疗法的需求。Venetoclax 是一种口服生物活性强的 B 细胞淋巴瘤 2 (BCL-2) 蛋白抑制剂,可与 HMAs 协同作用,靶向恶性髓系细胞。venetoclax 和 HMAs 已被批准用于治疗新诊断的急性髓性白血病(AML)[1]。临床试验表明,venetoclax 与 HMAs 联用不仅对新诊断患者有效,而且对复发或难治性 MDS 患者也有效 [2,3]。然而,有关这种联合用药的真实世界数据仍然有限,尤其是在既往未接受过治疗的高危 MDS 群体中,这些群体的反应和预后基因型特征尚未完全阐明。这项回顾性真实世界研究在北京大学人民医院和北京清河医院进行,分析了2020年1月至2024年2月期间接受venetoclax联合HMA治疗的既往未经治疗的高危MDS患者队列的数据。符合条件的参与者为年龄在18岁或18岁以上的成人,根据2016年世界卫生组织(WHO)的分类,形态学诊断为MDS,根据IPSS-R(评分&gt; 3.5)被分层为高风险,东部合作肿瘤学组(ECOG)的表现状态为0-2。如果患者的治疗反应数据不完整、诊断为慢性粒细胞白血病(CMML)或与治疗相关的 MDS,则将其排除在外。此外,符合移植条件的患者通常不考虑在本中心接受 Venetoclax 和 HMA 治疗,但那些计划在 2 个月后接受移植的患者,如果骨髓造血干细胞≥5%,则可在等待移植期间接受 Venetoclax 和 HMA 治疗。从病历中提取基线数据,包括人口统计学、疾病特征和治疗模式。Venetoclax在28天周期的第1-14天每天服用400毫克,同时按照标准方案服用地西他滨(20毫克/平方米,第1-5天)或阿扎胞苷(75毫克/平方米,第1-7天)。疗效结果包括客观反应率(ORR)、完全反应(CR)和无事件生存期(EFS),根据国际工作组(IWG)2006年标准在每个治疗周期后对反应进行评估。EFS定义为复发、急性髓细胞性白血病进展或死亡的时间,总生存期(OS)定义为任何原因死亡的时间。统计分析使用 IBM SPSS 统计 22.0 版进行。ORR和CR采用Clopper-Pearson法计算,生存期分析采用Kaplan-Meier法估算。根据年龄、IPSS-R和基因突变等关键因素进行了亚组分析。采用逻辑回归和 Cox 回归确定影响结局的因素,多变量分析包括单变量分析中 p 值为 &lt; 0.2 的变量。共纳入 103 例既往未接受过venetoclax 和 HMAs 治疗的高危 MDS 患者。中位年龄为61岁(18-77岁)。中位IPSS-R评分为6.0分,50.5%被归类为高风险,35.0%被归类为极高风险。32.2%的患者发现了ASXL1突变,其次是RUNX1(18.9%)、U2AF1(14.4%)和DNMT3A(12.2%)。13.3%的患者存在单倍TP53突变,1.1%的患者存在双倍突变(表S1)。移植患者普遍较年轻,中位年龄为 48 岁,而非移植患者为 63 岁(p &lt; 0.001)。更多移植患者被诊断为中期胚泡期 2(IB2)(83.3% 对 54.8%,p = 0.022)。两个亚组的主要分子特征(包括TP53、RUNX1和NPM1突变)相似(表S2)。103名患者中,97人(94.2%)接受了地西他滨治疗,6人(5.8%)接受了阿扎胞苷治疗,中位治疗周期为4个周期(1-14个周期)。截止到2024年5月27日,59名患者停止了治疗,主要原因是干细胞移植(50.8%)和疾病进展(30.5%)。ORR为79.6%(95%置信区间[CI]:70.5-86.9),CR率为34.0%,骨髓完全应答(mCR)为28.2%。一个治疗周期后,ORR 为 68.9%,CR 为 7.8%,mCR 为 33.0%。 最常见的AE为贫血(98.1%;≥3级:55.3%)、中性粒细胞减少(98.1%;≥3级:53.3%)、血小板减少(97.1%;≥3级:49.5%)和骨髓抑制(86.4%;≥3级:47.6%)(表S5)。1%;≥3级:49.5%)和骨髓抑制(86.4%;≥3级:47.6%)(表S5)。本研究显示,在接受venetoclax和HMAs治疗的高危MDS患者中,RUNX1突变与较差的应答、EFS和OS相关,这与之前的研究结果一致[4]。虽然TP53突变患者的ORR为69.2%,但CR率仅为7.7%,生存期明显缩短,这凸显了venetoclax联合HMAs在该亚组中的获益有限。MDS中ASXL1突变的预后意义仍是一个需要积极研究的领域,不同研究的结果相互矛盾。值得注意的是,之前在MDS人群中进行的文尼他克加HMAs的研究[5, 6]显示,ASXL1突变患者的预后有所改善。然而,患者特征的差异,如MDS中含有过多胚泡或复发/难治性病例的比例较高,以及将Venetoclax加HMA与单用HMA进行比较的特定重点,可能是我们的研究结果与之不一致的原因,在我们的研究中,ASXL1突变与反应或生存无关。虽然移植患者的3年生存率更高(72.2% vs. 49.6%),但这一差异在统计学上并不显著,这可能是由于样本量较小和基线差异造成的,例如移植患者的年龄较小。移植患者的主要死因是非复发死亡,而非移植患者的主要死因是疾病进展。大多数移植相关事件发生在早期,这可能是观察到的生存趋势的原因之一。尽管存在这些局限性,但我们的研究结果表明,对于不符合立即移植条件的患者来说,venetoclax加HMA是一种有效的替代疗法。样本量小、随访时间短,可能会限制其推广性并低估长期结果。总之,venetoclax加HMAs有望治疗未经治疗的高危MDS,其反应率良好,安全性可控。这项研究确定了基因型特征和反应作为生存预测因素,但还需要通过临床试验进一步验证,以加强这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
363
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Hematology offers extensive coverage of experimental and clinical aspects of blood diseases in humans and animal models. The journal publishes original contributions in both non-malignant and malignant hematological diseases, encompassing clinical and basic studies in areas such as hemostasis, thrombosis, immunology, blood banking, and stem cell biology. Clinical translational reports highlighting innovative therapeutic approaches for the diagnosis and treatment of hematological diseases are actively encouraged.The American Journal of Hematology features regular original laboratory and clinical research articles, brief research reports, critical reviews, images in hematology, as well as letters and correspondence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信