Comparative Analysis of Oligomonocytic CMML with Myelodysplastic and Myeloproliferative CMML Subtypes: A Study of 849 Molecularly-Annotated Patients

Introduction

Oligomonocytic chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (OM-CMML) is defined by relative monocytosis ≥ 10% and an absolute monocyte count (AMC) between ≥ 0.5 and < 1.0 x10⁹/L. The 5^th ed WHO and International Consensus Classifications lowered the AMC threshold to ≥ 0.5 x10/⁹L for CMML diagnosis, thereby incorporating OM-CMML (Khoury, 2022; Arber, 2022). However, prior reports differ as to whether OM-CMML is a distinct CMML subtype. This multi-center study compares the clinical, molecular, and survival features of OM-CMML with myelodysplastic (MD, WBC < 13.0 x10⁹/L) and myeloproliferative (MP, WBC ≥ 13.0 x10⁹/L) CMML with an AMC ≥1.0.

Methods

After IRB approval, patients with CMML from Mayo Clinic (n = 400, 47%) and MD Anderson Cancer Center (n = 449, 53%) were identified retrospectively. Analyses considered clinical, laboratory, and next generation sequencing parameters at diagnosis or first referral (in chronic phase). Categorical variables were compared by Fisher exact or Pearson χ² tests and continuous variables by Mann-Whitney U or ANOVA tests. Survival was assessed via the Kaplan-Meier method with outcomes censored at allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT). P < 0.05 was considered significant. Calculations used BlueSky Statistics (v10.3.1).

Results

A molecularly annotated cohort of 849 patients with CMML (median age 71 years, 32% female, 90% white, median follow up 31 months [mo]) was categorized as OM-CMML (n = 57, 7%), MD-CMML (n = 394, 46%), and MP-CMML (n = 391, 46%). There were no differences in age or sex across subtypes. No clinical differences were observed between OM-CMML and MD-CMML, with similar hematologic parameters, karyotype distributions, Mayo-Molecular (Patnaik, 2014) or CPSS-Molecular (Elena, 2016) risk stratifications, and rates of leukemic transformation (12% vs 12%, p = 0.98) and death (35% vs 43%, p = 0.27).

Cases of OM-CMML had lower WBC counts (median 4.4 vs 24.7 x10⁹/L, p < 0.0001), fewer circulating immature myeloid cells (23% vs 57%, p < 0.0001) and fewer marrow blasts (median 3% vs 4%, p = 0.0065) than MP-CMML. Comparatively, OM-CMML cases were overrepresented in the lower-risk groups of the CPSS-Molecular and Mayo-Molecular models (p < 0.0001). Leukemic transformation (12% vs 20%, p = 0.015) and death (35% vs 52%, p = 0.034) rates were higher in the MP-CMML cohort.

Molecular profiles were similar between OM-CMML and MD-CMML, including median number of genes mutated (3 vs 3, p = 0.88). Frequencies of ASXL1 (39% vs 38%, p = 0.91), SRSF2 (48% vs 43%, p = 0.49), DNMT3A (7% vs 5%, p = 0.60), and SF3B1 (4% vs 7%, p = 0.48) mutations were also similar. TET2 mutation frequency was higher in OM-CMML (70% vs 55%, p = 0.031) and occurred in isolation more frequently (12% vs 6%, p = 0.048) compared to MD-CMML. Neither median number of TET2 mutations (1 vs 2, p = 0.87), nor TET2 variant allele fractions (41% vs 44%, p = 0.19) were different between the two groups.

Compared to OM-CMML, patients with MP-CMML were more likely to have mutations in ASXL1 (39% vs 56%, p = 0.017), EZH2 (0% vs 9%, p = 0.019), JAK2 (0% vs 9%, p = 0.019), NRAS (7% vs 25%, p = 0.0024), and SETBP1 (2% vs 13%, p = 0.021). RAS family (CBL, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, PTPN11; 25% vs 54%, p < 0.0001) and signaling pathway (CSF3R, FLT3, JAK2, SH2B3; 2% vs 14%, p = 0.0078) mutations were also more frequent whereas spliceosome mutations (SF3B1, SRSF2, U2AF1, ZRSR2; 61% vs 46%, p = 0.033) were less frequent in MP-CMML.

The median (95% CI) overall survival (OS) of OM-CMML patients was 44 (38 - not reached) mo compared to 45 (34 - 60) mo in MD-CMML (p = 0.76) and 23 (20 - 29) mo in MP-CMML (p < 0.0032). Similar results were obtained when comparing the acute leukemia-free survival (LFS) of the OM-CMML (41 mo), MD-CMML (39 mo), and MP-CMML (19 mo) groups. At last follow up (medians 42 and 62 mo, respectively), 33% of evaluable OM-CMML patients had progressed to MD-CMML and 28% of MD-CMML patients had progressed to MP-CMML. No patient with OM-CMML progressed directly to MP-CMML.

Conclusions

These data show that OM-CMML and MD-CMML are a relatively homogenous subset of patients with similar clinicomolecular profiles and survival outcomes. Although OM-CMML patients are more likely to have TET2 mutations in comparison to other CMML subtypes, they have similar rates of disease progression as MD-CMML. This validates recent modifications to CMML classification criteria, in which OM-CMML cases are included as bona fide CMML.

Chien:AbbVie: Consultancy; Rigel Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Loghavi:Pathology Education Partners; VJ HemeOnc, College of American Pathologists, OncLive, ICCS, MD Education, NCCN, MashUp Media, NCTN, Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Guidepoint; QualWorld; Gerson Lehrman Group, AlphaSight, Arima, Qiagen, Opinion Health: Consultancy; Astellas, Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Syndx, Servier, BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie, Daiichi Sankyo, BluePrint Medicine, Caris Diagnostics, Recordati, Servier: Consultancy. Gangat:DISC Medicine: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board ; Agios: Other: Advisory Board. Mangaonkar:BMS: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Garcia-Manero:Curis: Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Astex: Other: Personal fees; Helsinn: Other: Personal fees; Genentech: Other: Personal fees; Amphivena: Research Funding. Montalban-Bravo:Takeda: Research Funding; Rigel: Research Funding. Patnaik:Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Polaris: Research Funding; StemLine: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Solu therapeutics: Research Funding; Epigenetix: Research Funding.