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 (CAC) 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.

No abstract

Acute leukemias are characterized by recurring chromosomal aberrations and gene mutations which are critical to disease pathogenesis. It is now evident that epigenetic modifications including DNA methylation and histone modifications contribute significantly to the leukemogenic phenotype. An additional layer of epigenetic complexity is the pathogenetic role of microRNAs in leukemias, and their key role in the transcriptional regulation of tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes. The genetic heterogeneity of acute leukemias poses therapeutic challenges, but pharmacologic agents that target components of the epigenetic machinery hold promise as a part of the therapeutic arsenal for this group of diseases.

No abstract

ABSTRACTpreviously described. 17 We selected a threshold age of 50 years because the optimal age for GA in this population has not been studied and this was the age at which reduction in transplant regimen intensity may be justified.18 A trained research assistant or nurse carried out the GA within one month prior to initiation of transplant conditioning. Occasionally, GA occurred 1-2 days after conditioning began. The treating physician determined suitability to undergo HCT and appropriate HCT treatment plan independent of GA results. After completing a prospective institutional review board approved protocol, 17 GA continued on a clinical basis. All patients provided written informed consent.

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/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 < .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.

No abstract

Ivosidenib (AG-120) and enasidenib (AG-221) are targeted, oral inhibitors of the mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase (mIDH) 1 and 2 enzymes, respectively. Given their effectiveness as single agents in mIDH1/2 relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML), this phase 1 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of ivosidenib or enasidenib combined with intensive chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed mIDH1/2 AML. Ivosidenib 500 mg once daily and enasidenib 100 mg once daily were well tolerated in this setting, with safety profiles generally consistent with those of induction and consolidation chemotherapy alone. The frequency of IDH differentiation syndrome was low, as expected given the concurrent administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy. In patients receiving ivosidenib, the frequency and grades of QT interval prolongation were similar to those observed with ivosidenib monotherapy. Increases in total bilirubin were more frequently observed in patients treated with enasidenib, consistent with this inhibitor's known potential to inhibit UGT1A1, but did not appear to have significant clinical consequences. In patients receiving ivosidenib (n = 60) or enasidenib (n = 91), end-of-induction complete remission (CR) rates were 55% and 47%, respectively, and CR/CR with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery (CR/CRi/CRp) rates were 72% and 63%, respectively. In patients with a best overall response of CR/CRi/CRp, 16/41 (39%) receiving ivosidenib had IDH1 mutation clearance and 15/64 (23%) receiving enasidenib had IDH2 mutation clearance by digital polymerase chain reaction; furthermore, 16/20 (80%) and 10/16 (63%), respectively, became negative for measurable residual disease by multiparameter flow cytometry. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02632708.