Abstract: Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are heterogeneous myeloid neoplasms in which a risk-adapted treatment strategy is needed. Recently, a new clinical-molecular prognostic model, the Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-M) was proposed to improve the prediction of clinical outcome of the currently available tool (Revised International Prognostic Scoring System [IPSS-R]). We aimed to provide an extensive validation of IPSS-M. METHODS A total of 2,876 patients with primary MDS from the GenoMed4All consortium were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS IPSS-M improved prognostic discrimination across all clinical end points with respect to IPSS-R (concordance was 0.81 v 0.74 for overall survival and 0.89 v 0.76 for leukemia-free survival, respectively). This was true even in those patients without detectable gene mutations. Compared with the IPSS-R based stratification, the IPSS-M risk group changed in 46% of patients (23.6% and 22.4% of subjects were upstaged and downstaged, respectively). In patients treated with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), IPSS-M significantly improved the prediction of the risk of disease relapse and the probability of post-transplantation survival versus IPSS-R (concordance was 0.76 v 0.60 for overall survival and 0.89 v 0.70 for probability of relapse, respectively). In high-risk patients treated with hypomethylating agents (HMA), IPSS-M failed to stratify individual probability of response; response duration and probability of survival were inversely related to IPSS-M risk. Finally, we tested the accuracy in predicting IPSS-M when molecular information was missed and we defined a minimum set of 15 relevant genes associated with high performance of the score. CONCLUSION IPSS-M improves MDS prognostication and might result in a more effective selection of candidates to HSCT. Additional factors other than gene mutations can be involved in determining HMA sensitivity. The definition of a minimum set of relevant genes may facilitate the clinical implementation of the score.

Abstract: Introduction Sex represents a major source of diversity among patients in terms of pathophysiology, clinical presentation, prognosis and response to therapy, and therefore sex (gender)-informed medicine is becoming a new paradigm to refine clinical decision making process in different human diseases. Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are heterogeneous disease characterized by ineffective hematopoiesis and risk of leukemic evolution. We aimed to study clinical effect of sex in MDS as a basis to improve patient prognostication and personalized treatment. Material and Methods We analysed three MDS populations from disease-specific registries (Italian registry n=3015, Dusseldorf registry, n=1185 and Spanish registry, n=7678). Results We first analysed the association of sex with clinical and biological disease-specific features. These analyses were conducted on Italian MDS cohort. Considering WHO categories, female patients showed higher prevalence of single lineage dysplasia and MDS with del(5q), while males were characterized by higher frequency of multilineage dysplasia and excess blasts (P & lt;.001). Considering cytogenetic abnormalities, an increased frequency of del(5q) in female patients was observed (P & lt;.001). We analysed mutations in 47 MDS-associated genes. Males presented higher prevalence of mutations with respect to females (82.2% vs. 76.2%, P & lt;.001), with higher prevalence of co-mutations. Considering specific gene pathways, splicing factors mutations were reported more frequently in males vs. females (66% vs. 56%, P & lt;.001). Focusing on MDS with ring sideroblasts (MDS-RS), we noticed a significant different distribution of splicing factor mutations according to sex: SF3B1 was mutated in large majority of female patients (95% of mutated cases), while SRSF2 and ZRSR2 mutations accounts for a significant proportion (26%) of mutated cases in males. In addition, males showed higher prevalence of mutations in DNA methylation genes (P & lt;.001), while tumor suppressor genes (TP53) were more frequently mutated in female patients. Clustering analysis showed specific co-mutation patterns in splicing and DNA methylation genes according to sex. Overall survival was significantly worse for male vs. female patients (P & lt;.001). In a multivariable analysis including age, neutrophils, hemoglobin and platelet counts, percentage of marrow blasts and cytogenetics as covariate, sex showed an independent effect on probability of survival (HR for female vs. male patients 0.56, P=.012). The prognostic effect of sex was observed in very-low, low and intermediate risk category according to IPSS-R (Table 1). The independent prognostic effect of sex was confirmed in two independent populations (Dusseldorf and Spanish registries). Competitive risk analysis showed higher prevalence of non-leukemic vs. leukemic deaths (P & lt;.001) in patients with early disease stage. In these patients, we observed a higher prevalence of cardiac comorbidity/deaths in males vs. females (P & lt;.001 and P=.005, respectively). Moreover, the risk of non-leukemic death was higher in males vs. females especially when hemoglobin levels were & lt;10 g/dl. These results suggest that in MDS patients, sex may capture prognostic information on the detrimental interactions between anemia and cardiac comorbidity. As a final step we aimed to integrate the prognostic value of sex into currently available prognostic systems (IPSS-R). We used random effects Cox proportional-hazards multistate modelling for developing an innovative personalized prognostic model ("Sex and age-adjusted IPSS-R", IPSS-RAS). All the three study populations were included (n=11.878). The predicted and observed outcomes correlate well in internal cross-validation. IPSS-RAS substantially improved predictive accuracy of original IPSS-R (concordance 0.68 vs. 0.62), especially in patients with early disease stage. Interestingly, demographic factors (age and sex) accounted for & gt;30% of whole prognostic power. Conclusion In MDS, sex captures additional prognostic information at individual patient level, possibly reflecting a different molecular background and, most importantly, a sex-specific interaction between disease-related factors and comorbidity. Our results strengthen the rationale to include sex in personalized prognostic assessment in these diseases. Table 1 Disclosures Voso: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Passamonti:Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Santoro:Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule: Consultancy; Takeda, Roche, Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, AstraZeneca, ArQule, Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD: Speakers Bureau; Takeda, Roche, Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, AstraZeneca, ArQule, Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD: Speakers Bureau; Arqule, Sanofi: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Santini:Menarini: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acceleron: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria. Sanz:Takeda Pharmaceutical Ltd.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LaHoffman Roche Ltd.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Helsinn: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Diez-Campelo:Celgene BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract: Introduction. Mutations in genes encoding the metabolic enzymes isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 and 2 are found in 10-20% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Recently, IDH inhibitors have shown good clinical response in patient's refractory to standard treatments, providing evidence for a new treatment paradigm. Comprehensive real-world studies are needed to explore genotype-to-phenotype correlations and prognosis of IDH mutated AML, which may influence targeted treatment strategies. Patients. From a retrospective, European, real-word population (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04369287) we studied 477 IDH mutated patients and 954 IDH wild type patients matched for age, sex and type of treatment with a 1:2 ratio. Results. Median age of IDH mutated patients was 67 years; IDH1 mutations were found in 202 patients (89% carried R132 mutation), while IDH2 mutations were found in 275 cases (51% and 28% carried R140 and R172 mutations, respectively). At diagnosis, IDH mutated patients had lower neutrophil and higher platelet count and higher percentage of marrow blasts (P & lt;0.001). IDH mutations were more frequently observed in de novo AML vs. AML from previous myeloid malignancy (P=0.043). Considering cytogenetic risk according to ELN criteria, the great majority of IDH1 and IDH2 mutated patients had an intermediate cytogenetic risk (84% and 86%, respectively, P & lt;.001, most of them showing a normal karyotype). Considering IDH1 vs. IDH2 mutated population, deletion of chromosome 7 was more frequently reported in IDH2 mutated patients (P=.001). We then analysed the most common co-mutational patterns in IDH mutated patients. A total of 53% of IDH1 mutated patients carried NPM1 mutations (without FLT3 mutations), while the majority of IDH2 mutated patients had wild type NPM1 gene (P & lt;.001). IDH2 mutated patients more frequently presented with co-mutation in FLT3 gene (P & lt;.001); among IDH2/FLT3 co-mutated patients, the great majority of cases carried the R140 mutation (P & lt;.001). ASXL1 mutations were also more frequently associated with IDH2 mutations (P=.029). Most patients with CEBPA biallelic mutations carried IDH1 or 2 mutations (66%, P=.01), while core binding factor translocations, and mutations in TP53 and RUNX1 were rarely associated with IDH1 or 2 mutations. Median overall survival from diagnosis (OS) was 14 months for IDH1 mutated patients, 23 for IDH2 mutated patients and 19 for IDH wild type patients (P & lt;.001, figure 1); the independent negative effect on OS for IDH1 mutations was confirmed in a multivariable analysis on the whole study population including age, sex, ELN risk group, and type of treatment as covariates (HR was 1.65 vs. wild type population and 1.36 vs. IDH2 mutated patients, P & lt;.001), as well as in a specific analysis focused on patients belonging to intermediate ELN risk category (HR 1.75 vs. wild type population, P & lt;.001). Focusing on different mutational hotspots, survival analysis confirmed that IDH1 R132 mutation was associated with worse prognosis among IDH mutated patients (P & lt;.001). Moreover, we observed a reduced relapse-free survival (RFS) for both IDH1 and 2 mutated patients vs. wild type patients (P & lt;.001, figure 1). Multivariable analysis confirmed worse RFS for IDH1 and 2 patients vs. wild type patients (HR 3.8 and 1.4, respectively, P & lt;.001), as well as for IDH1 vs. IDH2 mutated patients (HR 1.5, P & lt;.001). IDH mutated patients receiving hypomethylating agents (n=211) had a lower response rate vs. wild type patients (56% vs. 36% of treatment failure, respectively, P=.04), while no significant different probability of response to intensive chemotherapy was noticed. In patients who received allogeneic transplantation (n=345), IDH1 mutated patients shower higher relapse rate vs. wild type and IDH2 mutated patients (53% vs. 34%, P & lt;.001). Conclusion. In a real world context, AML patients with IDH1 and 2 mutations have high marrow blasts percentage, frequently present normal karyotype and show specific co-mutational patterns with respect to NPM1, FLT3 and ASXL1 genes. IDH1 mutations were an independent predictor of unfavorable outcome with high rate of disease recurrence under currently available treatment options, and could be considered as an additional marker to improve personalized prognostic assessment within ELN risk groups. Dissection of prognosis of IDH mutated AML may influence targeted treatment strategies in clinical practice. Disclosures Voso: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Heibl:Takeda: Honoraria; AOP orphan: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Metzeler:Astellas: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Otsuka Pharma: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Thiede:AgenDix GmbH: Other: Co-owner and CEO. Fracchiolla:ABBVIE: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau. Todisco:Jannsen, Abbvie, Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Passamonti:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support.

Abstract: Advancements in comprehending myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) have unfolded significantly in recent years, elucidating a myriad of cellular and molecular underpinnings integral to disease progression. While molecular inclusions into prognostic models have substantively advanced risk stratification, recent revelations have emphasized the pivotal role of immune dysregulation within the bone marrow milieu during MDS evolution. Nonetheless, immunotherapy for MDS has not experienced breakthroughs seen in other malignancies, partly attributable to the absence of an immune classification that could stratify patients toward optimally targeted immunotherapeutic approaches. A pivotal obstacle to establishing “immune classes” among MDS patients is the absence of validated accepted immune panels suitable for routine application in clinical laboratories. In response, we formed International Integrative Innovative Immunology for MDS (i4MDS), a consortium of multidisciplinary experts, and created the following recommendations for standardized methodologies to monitor immune responses in MDS. A central goal of i4MDS is the development of an immune score that could be incorporated into current clinical risk stratification models. This position paper first consolidates current knowledge on MDS immunology. Subsequently, in collaboration with clinical and laboratory specialists, we introduce flow cytometry panels and cytokine assays, meticulously devised for clinical laboratories, aiming to monitor the immune status of MDS patients, evaluating both immune fitness and identifying potential immune “risk factors.” By amalgamating this immunological characterization data and molecular data, we aim to enhance patient stratification, identify predictive markers for treatment responsiveness, and accelerate the development of systems immunology tools and innovative immunotherapies.