Comparative Analysis of Oligomonocytic CMML with Myelodysplastic and Myeloproliferative CMML Subtypes: A Study of 849 Molecularly-Annotated Patients
Authors: Csizmar Clifford M. , Natu Anuya A. , Kanagal-Shamanna Rashmi , Chien Kelly S. , Hammond Danielle , Loghavi Sanam , Bazinet Alexandre , Lasho Terra L. , Finke Christy , Al-Kali Aref , Alkhateeb Hassan B , Gangat Naseema , Mangaonkar Abhishek A. , Saliba Antoine N. , Tefferi Ayalew , Garcia-Manero Guillermo , Kantarjian Hagop , Montalban-Bravo Guillermo , Patnaik Mrinal M. 
Published: December 2024

Introduction
Oligomonocytic chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (OM-CMML) is defined by relative monocytosis ≥ 10% and an absolute monocyte count (AMC) between ≥ 0.5 and &lt; 1.0 x109/L. The 5th 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 0.0001), fewer circulating immature myeloid cells (23% vs 57%, p &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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.