MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417001699 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-75

Somatic mutations at diagnosis in patients with chronic Phase CML receiving frontline imatinib are associated with a higher rate of treatment failure: First analysis from the international CML foundation (iCMLf) genomics alliance on the harmony platform

2025· article· en· W4417001699 on OpenAlexaffabout
Susan Branford, Ali Albeer, Ángela Villaverde Ramiro, Joe McConnell, María Abáigar, Jenny Rinke, Kateřina Machová Poláková, Jiří Mayer, Rwth Stuckey, Mohamed A. Yassin, Lee‐Yung Shih, Ahmad Alhuraiji, Carlo Gambacorti‐Passerini, Dennis Kim, S. Tiong Ong, Tomasz Stokłosa, Jitka Křížková, Adam Láznička, Ivana Ježíšková, María Teresa Gómez‐Casares, Susanna Akiki, Mahmoud Hasaneen, Federica Colombo, Charles Chuah, Monika Pępek, Ángela de la Hoz Rodríguez, Ana Maria Garcı́a, Markus Pfirrmann, N Evans, Andreas Hochhaus, Timothy P. Hughes, Chung Hoow Kok, Thomas Ernst

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImatinibExome sequencingGenomicsDNA sequencingPrecision medicineExomeCohortGermline mutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Evidence has accumulated that somatic mutations in myeloid genes other than BCR::ABL1 at CML diagnosis are associated with treatment failure. Genomic profiling in chronic phase diagnosis samples of unselected cohorts revealed mutations in 17-24% of patients. At diagnosis, ASXL1 is the most frequently mutated gene at 7.3-9%. Genomic profiling using next-generation sequencing is now standard practice for many hematologic cancers where pathogenic variants define molecular classes that stratify risk and assign therapy. However, the genomic profile at diagnosis is not integrated into risk stratification for CML and data is lacking to guide management decisions. Combining many datasets derived from different centers through the iCMLf Genomics Alliance and the HARMONY Alliance Foundation Platform could facilitate the incorporation of genomics-based algorithms into the clinical management of CML based on strong clinical evidence. Objective To pool global genomic data to assess the clinical relevance of pathogenic variants at diagnosis of chronic phase CML. Methods The HARMONY Platform is a central repository of anonymous data from multiple contributors. CML patient whole exome or targeted gene panel sequencing data was submitted to the HARMONY Platform from 12 centers: Europe 6; Middle East 2; Australia 1; Taiwan 1; Singapore 1; and Canada 1. This first analysis was performed for the largest cohort on the platform of 468 frontline imatinib-treated patients at chronic phase diagnosis. The data comprised a mix of consecutively-treated patients at diagnosis or patients retrospectively selected for sequencing based on treatment failure. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were generated to estimate time-to-event outcomes, and the log-rank test was used to assess differences in survival distributions between groups. Five-year survival probabilities are reported to provide time-specific context. Progression was defined as blast phase, accelerated phase or death. Failure was defined as per the ELN 2020 criteria. Survival outcomes were considered from the start date of imatinib to the date of the first event under investigation or death, whichever came first. Probabilities of acquiring BCR::ABL1 kinase domain mutations were calculated using Gray's test with death as the competing risk. Level of significance was 0.05. Results At diagnosis, somatic variants in myeloid genes that met strict criteria for pathogenicity were detected in 96/468 imatinib-treated patients, 20.5%. ASXL1 was the most frequently mutated gene: 53/468 patients, 11.3%. Of 20 mutated genes, only 3 others were mutated at a frequency of >1.5%: TET2, DNMT3A and RUNX1, 2.6%, 2.4% and 1.7%, respectively. The median follow-up time was 4.2 years, range 0.04-20.8. Comparing outcomes for patients with and without pathogenic variants at diagnosis, there was no difference in overall survival. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with pathogenic variants at diagnosis compared to patients with no pathogenic variants was 76.3% vs 83.1% (overall PFS comparison P=0.041). Five-year failure-free survival (FFS) for patients with pathogenic variants compared to patients with no pathogenic variants was 43.8% vs 65.2% (overall comparison P<0.0001). BCR::ABL1 kinase domain mutation analysis was performed after diagnosis for 432/468 patients. The 5-year probability of acquiring BCR::ABL1 mutations for patients with pathogenic variants at diagnosis compared to patients with no pathogenic variants was 20.0% vs 11.4% (overall comparison P=0.067, Gray test). Since the frequency of mutated ASXL1 at diagnosis was higher than other genes, the association with outcome was assessed. There was no difference in overall survival or PFS. Patients with mutated ASXL1 had the lowest 5-year FFS compared to patients with other pathogenic variants and those with no variants: 41.0% vs 49.3% vs 65.2% (overall comparison P value=0.0005). The overall FFS comparison P values for mutated ASXL1 vs no variants was 0.0012 and other pathogenic variants vs no variants 0.007. Conclusion This is the largest genomic analysis of frontline imatinib-treated patients that has been undertaken. Pathogenic variants at diagnosis were associated with lower PFS and FFS. This first report from the global alliance awaits validation but provides evidence-based insights that could enhance patient management by refining risk stratification through the integration of large-scale clinical and genomic data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207