Validation of blast and blast-mol risk models in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia: Mayo-humanitas collaborative project involving 1,101 patients Free

Background: The recently published BLAST clinical and BLAST molecular (BLAST-Mol) risk models for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) incorporate clinical and molecular variables, respectively, for prediction of overall survival (OS), while BLAST-BT (blast transformation) risk model was predictive of BT free survival (BTFS) [Blood 2025;doi:]. In the current study, the Mayo Clinic (USA) CMML cohort used in the aformentioned study was expanded from 457 to 600 patients and merged with an external cohort of 501 patients from the Humanitas Research Hospital (HRH; Italy) in order to validate the BLAST, BLAST-Mol and BLAST-BT risk models.

Methods: CMML diagnosis and sub-categorization were according to the International Consensus Classification, which included CMML-1 (BM/PB blasts <10%/<5%) vs. CMML-2 (BM/PB blasts ≥10%/≥5%) and CMML-MP (leukocytes ≥13 x 10⁹/L) vs. CMML-MD (leukocytes <13 x 10⁹/L) [Blood 2022;140:1200]. The BLAST score is based on clinical risk factors including PB blasts ≥2%, leukocytes ≥13 x 10⁹/L, and severe or moderate anemia resulting in BLAST low, intermediate, and high risk groups. BLAST-Mol also accounts for mutations and karyotype and identifies PHF6 and TET2 as “favorable” and DNMT3A, U2AF1, BCOR, SETBP1, ASXL1, NRAS, PTPN11, RUNX1, TP53, as “unfavorable” mutations with adverse karyotype also considered unfavorable. BLAST-BT variables include absence of PHF6^MUT, BM blasts ≥10%, presence of DNMT3A^MUT, PB blasts ≥2%, leukocyte count ≥13 x 10⁹ /L, and ASXL1^MUT. OS analyses were censored for allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT). Conventional statistical methods were employed, using JMP Pro 18.0.0 software SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.

Results: A total of 1,101 patients (median age 73 years; 67% males) with newly-diagnosed CMML were considered: Mayo cohort 600 and HRH cohort 501. Compared to the HRH cohort, the Mayo cohort was more likely to include CMML-MP (44% vs. 28%; p<0.01), CMML-1 (87% vs. 81%; p<0.01), ASXL1^MUT (48% vs. 35%; p<0.01), SRSF2^MUT (43% vs. 33%; p<0.01), NRAS^MUT (15% vs 9%; p<0.01), PHF6^MUT (7% vs. 4%; p<0.01), and less likely to harbor TET2^MUT (50% vs. 58%; p<0.01), and SF3B1^MUT (4% vs. 10%; p<0.01) [Table 1].

At a median follow-up of 55 months (range 0-202), 686 (62%) deaths, 218 (20%) BTs, and 142 (13%) ASCTs were documented. CPSS-mol risk categories at diagnosis included low (N=190; median OS 67 months), intermediate-1(N=271; median 38 months), intermediate-2 (N=407; median 26 months), and high (N=231; median 16 months; p<0.01) [AUC at 5 years 0.75]. BLAST clinical risk distribution was low (N=356; median OS 65 months), intermediate (N=393; median 30 months), and high (N= 352; median 16 months; p<0.01) [Figure 1; AUC at 5 years 0.79]. The corresponding AUCs calculated for the Mayo and HRH cohorts, separately, were 0.81 and 0.76, respectively.

BLAST-Mol risk assignments included low (N=357; median OS 66 months), intermediate (N=512; median 27 months) and high (N=232; median 15 months; p<0.01) [Figure 2; AUC at 5 years 0.79]. The corresponding AUCs for the Mayo and HRH cohorts were 0.81 and 0.77, respectively. The 3-year cumulative incidence of BT (accounting for death from another cause) stratified by BLAST-BT risk model included 8% for very low risk (N=54), 11% for low risk (N=332), 20% for intermediate-risk (N=281), 27% for high risk (N=250), and 34% for very high risk (N=176) [p<0.01; Figure 3]. Multivariable analysis of the combined Mayo-Humanitas cohort (N=1,101) identified age >65 years (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3-2.1), CMML-2 subtype (HR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5), and a number of other mutations or co-mutations with BLAST-Mol-independent and CPSS-mol-independent prognostic contribution (to be elaborated further at the time of meeting presentation).

Conclusions: The current study validates the predictive performance of the BLAST, BLAST-Mol and BLAST-BT risk models in a large two-center international cohort of patients with CMML. The possibility of further enhancement of the BLAST-Mol model is suggested by the demonstration of independent prognostic relevance from additional mutations and co-mutations.