Distinct patterns of mutant ASXL1 over time and their implications for treatment failure (TF) and BCR::ABL1 mutation development in newly diagnosed patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) treated with asciminib (ASC) vs investigator-selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors (IS-TKI) in the ASC4FIRST study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: ASC, an allosteric BCR::ABL1 inhibitor, was recently approved in several countries for use in newly diagnosed patients (pts) with CML-CP based on the results from the ASC4FIRST study (NCT04971226). The most frequent additional genomic alteration (AGA) at baseline (BL) reported in this study was ASXL1 mutation (ASXL1+). The allelic burden of ASXL1+ clones at BL was incidentally higher in pts receiving ASC (24% variant allele frequency [VAF]) vs IS-TKI (10% VAF). ASXL1+ at BL was associated with increased risk of TF (as per ELN 2020 criteria). Here, we report an exploratory analysis of the longitudinal changes of ASXL1+ from BL in relation to outcomes until week (wk) 96 follow-up. Methods: Presence of AGAs was determined using a DNA next-generation sequencing panel of 89 genes on diagnostic blood samples collected at BL, wk 48 and end of treatment (EOT). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model with time-dependent covariates adjusted for age, sex and treatment (ASC or IS-TKI) was used to determine the prognostic and predictive value of AGAs considering their changes over time. Pts harboring AGAs were categorized as presenting persistent, eradicated or treatment-emergent clones. Results: Of 405 pts randomized, AGA analysis was performed at BL for 341 pts (ASC, n=169; IS-TKIs, n=172 [imatinib, n=83; second generation TKI, n=89]) with the available samples. AGAs were detected at BL in 21.1% (72/341) of pts (32/169 ASC vs 40/172 IS-TKI). The most frequent AGA detected was ASXL1+ in 11% (39/341) of pts at BL and in 15% (50/341) at any time until wk 96/EOT. Three patients with ASXL1+ at BL had no post-BL genomic data. Other AGAs detected were not included in the analysis due to low frequencies of events for individual mutated genes. On-treatment emergence of at least one new ASXL1+ clone was observed in 12 pts (6 ASC vs 6 IS-TKI). In 6 pts with an emergent ASXL1+ clone at wk 48 (VAF: 1%−10%), major molecular response (MMR) was achieved at the same time. In these 6 cases, clonal hematopoiesis (CH) in non-leukemic clones was suspected. For the other 6 pts, ASXL1+ emergence likely took place in leukemic clones. Eradication of BL ASXL1+ was observed in 74% (29/39) of pts irrespective of initial clonal burden (VAF: 1.2%–44%). ASXL1+ clones detectable at BL were persistent at the last evaluation in 6 pts (4 ASC vs 2 IS-TKI). Pts with ≥1 persistent ASXL1+ clone had a higher probability of TF as compared to pts who had on-treatment eradication of BL ASXL1+ clones in either treatment arm. Summarized at pt level, TF was observed in 5/6 pts with persistent vs 4/29 pts with eradicated clones (Fisher test; p=0.03). Treatment-emergent BCR::ABL1 mutations were associated with persistent ASLX1+ in 5/6 cases vs 1/29 cases among pts who had on-treatment eradication of ASXL1+ clones. Overall, detectable ASXL1+ at any time during the study was a prognostic and a predictive factor for TF. For pts with no ASXL1 mutation at any time point (85%; 291/341 pts), the TF rate was considerably lower for ASC (8%; 12/145 pts) than for IS-TKI (28%; 41/146 pts). The overall TF rate was comparable between treatment arms (8/24 on ASC vs 9/26 on IS-TKI) among patients with detectable ASXL1+ at any time. Although the ASC arm showed a higher TF risk difference in ASXL1+ compared to ASXL1-negative pts, this may be due to the higher baseline ASXL1+ clonal burden in the ASC group. In the larger subset of ASXL1-negative pts, the MMR rate at wk 96 was 80% (116/145) for ASC and 51% (74/146) for IS-TKI, while the MMR rate was comparable for pts on ASC (13/24; 54%) vs IS-TKI (12/26; 46%) in the subset with detectable ASXL1+ at any time during the study. Conclusions: ASXL1+ was the most frequent AGA in ASC4FIRST and was associated with higher rates of TF and BCR::ABL1 mutations. The number of emergent ASXL1 mutations on treatment was low and similar in both treatment arms. Most of the ASXL1+ clones were eradicated on treatment and the initial allelic burden at BL was not associated with persistence or eradication. TF risk was lower for pts with eradicated ASXL1+ clones. Data from this exploratory analysis in ASC4FIRST support the use of ASC in newly diagnosed CML-CP pts regardless of ASXL1 mutational status. Additional investigations in larger cohorts and longer follow-up are warranted to further elucidate the risks associated with different patterns of ASXL1+ over time and to develop optimized therapeutic strategies in this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".