Publication Date:
2020-11-05
Description:
INTRODUCTION: The current WHO definition requires presence of persistent absolute monocytosis for the diagnosis of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). Oligomonocytic CMML (O-CMML), defined by presence of clinical and pathological features of CMML in the presence of an absolute monocyte count (AMC) of 0.5-0.9x109/L and ³10% monocytes, has been proposed as a unique entity. To date, there is scarce data on the clonal architecture, optimal therapeutic management and survival outcomes of these patients (pts) compared to those with classical CMML. METHODS: We evaluated all untreated pts who met proposed diagnostic criteria of O-CMML treated at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2000 to 2020. Whole bone marrow DNA was subject to 81 gene targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis in a subset of patients. Variant allele frequency (VAF) estimates were used to evaluate clonal relationships within each individual sample using Pearson goodness-of-fit tests and VAF differences. Response to therapy was assessed following MDS/MPN IWG response criteria. RESULTS: A total of 30 pts met criteria for O-CMML. Compared to a cohort of 271 pts with classical CMML, there were no significant differences in cytogenetic abnormalities based on CMML-specific prognostic scoring system (CPSS). NGS was available in 10 (33%) patients with O-CMML. Frequency of identified mutations and their VAFs are shown in Figure 1A and compared to that of the CMML cohort. Frequencies of mutations in ASXL1 (50% vs 49.1%, p=0.958), SRSF2 (60% vs 39.4%, p=0.198), TET2 (70% vs 49.1%, p=0.199) and RUNX1 (20% vs 19.4%, p=0.965) were similar in O-CMML and CMML with RAS pathway mutations (NRAS, KRAS, CBL, NF1, SETBP1, PTPN11) being more frequent in CMML compared to O-CMML (51.4% vs 20%, p=0.053). The median number of mutations was 4 (range 1-12), and 4 (range 0-8) in O-CMML and CMML (p=0.578), respectively. No significant differences in median VAFs for ASXL1 (28.2% vs 33.5%, p=0.503), SRSF2 (41.1% vs 45.7%, p=0.743), TET2 (30.4% vs 42.6%, p=0.342), RUNX1 (26.9% vs 32.7%, p=0.837), and RAS pathway mutations (21.6% vs 23%, p=0.197) were observed between both groups. Frequencies at which each mutation appeared as a dominant or minor clone are shown in Figure 1B. Mutations in RAS pathway were more likely to appear as minor clones in patients with O-CMML (71% vs 50%, p
Print ISSN:
0006-4971
Electronic ISSN:
1528-0020
Topics:
Biology
,
Medicine
Permalink