Evidence Hub

Risk-adjusted comparison of survival in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia with and without allogeneic stem cell transplant: Mayo Clinic experience in 775 consecutive patients

Ali Alsugair, Saubia Fathima, Mohammad M. Alhousani, Estefania Gauto Mariotti, Priyansh Faldu, M. Yousuf, A. Bolarinwa, Clifford Csizmar et al.

Blood, 2025

624 participants

Abstract

Background: The recently published BLAST clinical risk model for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and its molecular version (BLAST-Mol) differentiate low, intermediate, and high risk groups (Blood 2025; blood.2024027170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2024027170). The objective of the current study was to examine the survival impact of allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) in a consecutive series of Mayo Clinic patients with CMML, overall and adjusted for baseline BLAST/BLAST-Mol risk category.

Methods: CMML diagnosis and sub-categorization were according to the International Consensus Classification, which included CMML1 (bone marrow/peripheral blood blasts <10%/<5%) vs CMML-2 (bone marrow/peripheral blood blasts ≥10%/≥5%) and CMML-MP (leukocytes ≥13 x 10⁹/L) vs. CMML-MDS (leukocytes <13 x 10⁹/L) [Arber et al. Blood 2022;140:1200]. The BLAST score is based on clinical risk factors including circulating blasts ≥2%, leukocytes ≥13 x 10⁹/L, and severe or moderate anemia whereas BLAST-Mol also accounts for mutations and karyotype. Comparative parameters and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the time of initial CMML diagnosis for both the transplant and non-transplant groups. Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro 17.1.0, (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

Results: A total of 775 consecutive Mayo Clinic patients with CMML (68% males, median age 71 years) were included in the current retrospective study (1994-2024). At a median follow-up of 77 months,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 624 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free