One vs. 2 vs. ≥3 <i>TET2</i> mutations in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia: Co-mutation patterns and prognostic correlates.

M Muhammad Yousuf S Saubia Fathima (1Mayo Clinic, Hematology, Rochester, United States) A Ali Alsugair (1Mayo Clinic, Hematology, Rochester, United States) S Samuel Wu (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) M Maymona Abdelmagid (4Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, United States) P Priyansh Faldu (1Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA, Rochester, United States) R Rania Abdelaziz (1Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA, Rochester, United States) C Clifford Michael Csizmar (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) A Abhishek A. Mangaonkar (26Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN) C Cinthya J. Zepeda Mendoza (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) K Kaaren Reichard (4Mayo Clinic, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Rochester, United States) D David Viswanatha (1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States) R Rong He A Animesh Dev Pardanani (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) N Naseema Gangat (4Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, United States) M Mrinal Patnaik (5Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States) A Ayalew Tefferi (4Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, United States)

Abstract

6588 Background: TET2 is the most frequently mutated gene in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and has been associated with favorable outcome, with recent studies suggesting a more pronounced prognostic impact in the presence of ≥2 TET2 mutations ( Csizmar et al. leukemia 2025;39:2030; Kynning et al. Br J Haematol. 2025 Nov 25. doi: 10.1111/bjh.70264 ). We sought to determine if this particular observation extended to patients with ≥3 TET2 mutations ( TET2 MUT ) and also held true in the context of recently reiterated genetic risk factors. Methods: The current study was conducted under institutional review board approved minimum risk protocols allowing retrospective patient data collection and analysis. Diagnostic criteria were according to the International Consensus Classification (Arber et al. Blood 2022. 140:1200). All statistical analyses were conducted using JMP 18 software. Results: 536 CMML patients who underwent CLIA-approved NGS testing were stratified according to the number of TET2 MUT : 221 (41%) wild-type, 148 (28%) with one, 153 (29%) 2, and 14 (2%) ≥3 TET2 MUT . Co-mutation frequencies with significant differences between one vs. two TET2 MUT included ASXL1 (46% vs. 29%; p&lt;0.01), KRAS (7% vs. 14%; p=0.02) and SETBP1 (5% vs. 0.6%; p=0.02). Phenotypic comparisons revealed preponderance of prognostically favorable traits associated with wild-type TET2 but no significant differences between one vs. two TET2 MUT . In age-adjusted univariate analysis, transplant-censored overall survival (TCOS), calculated from the time of mutation detection, was superior in patients with one (p&lt;0.01; HR 0.7) or 2 (p&lt;0.01; HR 0.4) but not ≥3 (p=0.4) TET2 MUT , vs. those with wild-type TET2 . TCOS was also superior with 2 vs. 1 (p=0.02; HR 0.7) but not with ≥3 vs. 1 (p=0.7) TET2 MUT ; the results were similar when TCOS was calculated from the time of diagnosis. Multivariable analysis confirmed the survival advantage of exactly two TET2 MUT vs. wild-type TET2 (p&lt;0.01; HR 0.5), one TET2 MUT (p&lt;0.01; HR 0.6), or ≥3 TET2 MUT (p&lt;0.01; HR 0.4), after adjusting for age, sex, anemia, circulating blasts ≥2%, and leukocyte count ≥13×10⁹/L. The favorable impact of exactly two TET2 MUT persisted in CMML-MD and CMML-MP and remained independent of TET2 VAF, mutation type, karyotype, and other prognostically relevant mutations. This association was sustained in the BLAST (p&lt;0.01; HR 0.5) and CPSS-mol (p=0.02; HR 0.7) models, but not in BLAST-mol model (p=0.12). Conclusions: Mechanistic explanation for this novel observation includes the possibility that TET2 mutational categories based on mutation count reflect distinct biological states rather than having a simple linear effect. The persistence of this signal despite adjustment for established molecular and genetic risk factors supports its consideration in the development of future CMML prognostic models.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2026
Pages 6588-6588
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (17)

M

Muhammad Yousuf

S

Saubia Fathima

1Mayo Clinic, Hematology, Rochester, United States

A

Ali Alsugair

1Mayo Clinic, Hematology, Rochester, United States

S

Samuel Wu

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

M

Maymona Abdelmagid

4Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, United States

P

Priyansh Faldu

1Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA, Rochester, United States

R

Rania Abdelaziz

1Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA, Rochester, United States

C

Clifford Michael Csizmar

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

A

Abhishek A. Mangaonkar

26Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

C

Cinthya J. Zepeda Mendoza

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

K

Kaaren Reichard

4Mayo Clinic, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Rochester, United States

D

David Viswanatha

1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States

R

Rong He

A

Animesh Dev Pardanani

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

N

Naseema Gangat

4Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, United States

M

Mrinal Patnaik

5Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States

A

Ayalew Tefferi

4Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, United States