TP53-mutated myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia: a comprehensive overview of targeted approaches.

Introduction

Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are a group of clonal hematological malignancies marked by ineffective blood cell production, cytopenia, and the accumulation of immature myeloid blasts in the bone marrow and peripheral circulation. AML is the most prevalent form of acute leukemia in adults. In the United States, the median age of AML diagnosis is approximately 68 years, and its incidence is increasing with age ( 1 ). In 2025, there were an estimated 22,010 new cases of AML in the United States ( 2 ). Although treatment outcomes for AML have improved over the years, survival disparities between younger and older patients remain striking. Based on SEER registry data from 2001–2018, among chemotherapy-treated adults, 5-year survival reached 59.1% in those aged 20–39 and 42.6% in those 40–59, but declined sharply to 21.0% for ages 60–74 and fell below 6% for patients ≥75 years ( 1 ). This limited improvement is largely due to poor tolerance of intensive standard induction, such as the standard cytarabine and anthracycline-based chemotherapy (7+3) regimen, and the higher prevalence of adverse genetic mutations in older patients ( 3 ).

Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology have deepened our insights into the genetic landscapes of AML and MDS, leading to the identification of precursor conditions. For instance, clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate (CHIP) or oncogenic potential (CHOP) are now recognized as early events in leukemogenesis. Successive WHO classifications have progressively incorporated molecular and cytogenetic features into the diagnostic framework of myeloid neoplasms, with the 2022 WHO and ICC classifications further refining disease categorization by formally recognizing TP53-mutated myeloid neoplasms as a distinct high-risk entity ( 4 , 5 ). A notable change includes the distinct classification of TP53-mutated neoplasms, defined by at least one somatic TP53 mutation with a variant allele frequency (VAF) above 10%. This change reflects the consistently poor prognosis associated with TP53 mutations ( 6 – 8 ) and their tendency to coincide with complex karyotype or therapy related AML (tAML) ( 3 ).

The TP53 gene, located on the chromosome 17p13.1, encodes the p53 protein, a key transcription factor that responds to cellular stress, including DNA damage, oncogene activation, and hypoxia ( 9 ). Upon activation, p53 promotes DNA repair, induces apoptosis, and regulates cell cycle progression and cellular differentiation ( 10 – 13 ). TP53 mutation (TP53m) is one of the most common genetic alterations across all human cancers. In AML, TP53 mutations are observed in approximately 5-15% of de novo cases and 15-30% of secondary or therapy-related AML, reflecting inter-study variability ( 14 – 17 ). Such mutations correlate with unfavorable clinical outcomes, driving primary resistance to chemotherapy, and an overall survival of less than 1 year ( 14 , 18 , 19 ). The tumor-suppressive function of p53 is essential for effective apoptosis in response to cytotoxic therapy; thus, TP53 mutations confer intrinsic resistance to conventional chemotherapy regimens.

The management of TP53-mutated MDS and AML remains a significant clinical challenge. Despite progress in understanding its molecular underpinnings, TP53 remains one of the most difficult targets in cancer biology. This review explores the molecular biology of TP53 mutations, their prognostic implications, and the efficacy of current and investigational treatment strategies aimed at overcoming resistance in this high-risk patient population.

Methodology

This narrative review is based on a literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and major hematology conference abstracts (ASH, EHA) covering publications from January 2000 through March 2025. Studies were selected based on relevance to TP53-mutated AML and MDS, including biological studies, prognostic analyses, and clinical trials.

TP53 gene biology, physiologic functions and mutation in AML

Biology

At chromosomal locus 17p13.1, TP53 gene encodes the wild-type p53 transcription factor, which is vital for orchestrating stress signaling and preserving genome stability. The p53 protein product has five functional regions: (a) the amino N-terminal transactivation domain (TA), (b) the proline-rich domain (PRD), (c) the central DNA-binding domain (DBD), (d) the tetramerization domain (TD), and (e) carboxy-terminal oligomerization domain (CTD) at the C-terminus ( 11 , 20 – 22 ). ( Figure 1 ) This tetrameric structure facilitates the sequential binding of p53 to various cofactors following stress signals such as DNA damage, replication errors or oncogene activation ( 13 ). Upon cellular stress, p53 coordinates cell cycle regulation, promotes DNA repair, and induces apoptosis, thus functioning as a critical safeguard against malignant transformation ( 23 , 24 ). TP53 mutations impair the specific binding of the protein to its cofactors, leading to tumor initiation, proliferation and chemoresistance ( 25 ). These changes are predominantly attributed to missense mutations causing an amino acid change in the DBD (~75%) ( 9 , 26 , 27 ) with splice-site indels accounting for 9%, nonsense mutations for 7%, silent changes for 5%, and other truncating variants making up the remainder ( 28 , 29 ). The mutations can cause proliferation of tumor cells via gain of function (GOF), a loss of function (LOF) or WTp53 dysfunction ( 13 ).

The p53 pathway

Under normal physiological conditions, p53 functions as a transcription factor with a short half-life and remains largely inactive due to tight regulation by the negative regulators MDM2 (Mouse Double Minute 2) and MDM4 (also known as MDMX). These proteins promote ubiquitination and subsequent proteasomal degradation of p53, maintaining its low basal levels in unstressed cells ( 30 – 32 ). However, upon exposure to cellular stress, such as DNA damage or oncogenic signaling ( 33 ), the p53/MDM2 interaction is disrupted leading to increase in intracellular p53 stabilization. This stabilization is further enhanced through post-translational modifications including phosphorylation, methylation and acetylation ( 34 – 38 ). The stabilized p53 either induces cell differentiation or activates transcription of genes leading to apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in cells with mutated or damaged DNA. Interestingly, wild-type p53 (WTp53) may be rendered dysfunctional in some cancers, including primary AML, due to overexpression of MDM2 and/or MDM4 (MDMX), which suppresses p53 activity and is associated with inferior outcomes ( 11 ). The tumor suppressor P14/ARF positively regulates p53 by inhibiting MDM2, thus preventing p53 degradation and promoting its stabilization. Low P14ARF expression has been linked to poor prognosis in several studies ( 39 – 41 ).

TP53 mutation in MDS/AML

TP53 mutations appear in only 5–10% of de novo MDS/AML cases but are far more frequent in secondary AML (18%) and therapy-related AML (30%) ( 42 – 44 ). These mutations are often associated with complex karyotypes (CK) and monosomal karyotypes (MK) ( 8 , 45 – 47 ), both indicative of genomic instability. TP53 mutations in MDS/AML can be monoallelic or biallelic ( 48 ). In this review, we use the term multihit TP53 as an umbrella concept encompassing classical biallelic alterations as well as functional equivalents, including multiple TP53 mutations, high variant allele frequency suggestive of copy-neutral loss of heterozygosity, or cytogenetic loss of chromosome 17p. The term biallelic TP53 is used when structural involvement of both alleles can be directly inferred. This terminology is consistent with contemporary WHO and ICC frameworks and reflects current clinical practice. Approximately 70% of the cases exhibit biallelic alterations, which typically involve a point mutation in one allele and the loss of the second allele through 17p deletion or monosomy 17. In contrast, monoallelic mutations (25-30%) usually consist of a single point mutation, frequently observed in patients with isolated 5q deletion MDS ( 22 , 49 – 51 ). TP53 mutations may also co-occur with other mutations, commonly in TET2 (29%), SF3B1 (27%), ASXL1 (16%), and DNMT3A (16%) which can influence disease progression and treatment outcomes ( 48 ). Furthermore, chromothripsis or chromosome shattering (chromosomal rearrangement) ( 52 ) is a phenomenon involving catastrophic chromosomal rearrangements which can lead to loss of heterozygosity by inactivating the remaining TP53 allele, particularly in cases with 17p deletion ( 53 ). This process is closely linked to TP53 mutations, cell cycle dysfunction, and poor prognosis in AML patients featuring complex karyotype ( 53 ). It has been recognized that biallelic or “multihit” involvement with multiple mutations or loss of heterozygosity is seen in 44% of MDS patients with TP53 mutations ( 48 ). Conversely, in low-risk MDS, about 20% of patients harbor monoallelic mutations alongside 5q deletion. These cases tend to occur in younger individuals and have a less aggressive clinical course than biallelic mutations ( 54 ).

The prognostic and therapeutic impact of TP53 allelic status has emerged as a key modifier of response. In MDS, patients with monoallelic TP53 mutations-defined as a single mutation without 17p deletion or replacement of the allele with its mutant counterpart (termed copy neutral loss of heterozygosity or CN-LOH)-demonstrate outcomes comparable to TP53 wild-type disease, with a median overall survival of ~2.5 years and 5-year OS around 40% ( 48 ). In contrast, multi-hit TP53 alterations, characterized by loss of the second allele via deletion, CN-LOH, or a second mutation, are strongly associated with complex karyotype and poor prognosis, with a median OS of only 8.7 months and 5-year OS consistently <10%, even after intensive chemotherapy or transplant ( 48 ).

Importantly, standard molecular testing for myeloid malignancies such as NGS gene panels and cytogenetic analyses may fail to detect CN-LOH. To accurately assess TP53-mutant allele status, specialized methods capable of identifying CN-LOH are required. These include expanded gene panels specifically designed to detect TP53 LOH, single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays, or whole-genome/exome sequencing ( 55 , 56 ). Detecting a single TP53 mutation having a VAF of greater than or equal to 50% is considered to be presumptive evidence of loss of the wild-type allele or CN-LOH. However, some cases of CN-LOH with low leukemia burden could be missed ( 55 , 57 ).

Precisely distinguishing between monoallelic and multihit TP53 alterations is therefore critical for prognosis and treatment planning. The current diagnostic criteria by International Consensus Classification (ICC) classify cases with 10-19% blasts with any TP53 mutation with VAF >10% as high-risk myeloid neoplasms, regardless of whether they meet classic AML or MDS thresholds. Recent updates by both the World Health Organization (WHO, 5 th edition) and ICC emphasize the poor prognosis of biallelic/multihit TP53 mutations in MDS/AML. Such cases are characterized by one or more of the following: two or more TP53 mutations each with a variant allele frequency (VAF) above 10%, VAF ≥ 50%, loss of the wild-type TP53 allele (e.g., 17p deletion or monosomy 17), or the presence of a complex karyotype ( 5 ).

Moreover, higher VAF levels have been correlated with poorer survival outcomes. A multicenter study involving 359 patients with complex karyotype MDS found that those with TP53 mutations and VAF > 40% had a median overall survival of only 0.6 years, significantly lower than those with VAF <40% (1.1 years, p=0.004). Even patients with VAF <40% had worse outcomes than TP53 wild-type patients (1.1 vs 1.5 years, p= 0.001) ( 8 , 58 ). These findings highlight the prognostic impact of VAF and support its integration into future diagnostic and treatment algorithms.

Given the strong association between TP53 mutations, genomic instability, and disease evolution, clonal hematopoiesis provides important insight into early leukemogenic events in TP53-mutated MDS and AML. Clonal hematopoiesis is age-associated expansion of hematopoietic cells driven by somatic mutations. Despite small size of the clones, these mutations lead to increased fitness of mutated clones, posing an increased risk of leukemic transformation affecting 0.5-1% carriers/year, particularly TP53 and U2AF1 ( 59 ). There is convincing evidence that TP53 mutations in individuals with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) are associated with increased risk of hematological cancers ( 60 – 63 ). TP53 mutation is also seen more frequently in CHIP patients who have received prior radiotherapy or cytotoxic chemotherapy ( 64 ). Gene mutations like DNMT3A, TET2, ASXL1, SRSF2, CBL and SF3B1 with TP53 mutation are associated with higher risk of leukemia ( 15 , 39 , 65 ). A recent study showed TP53, NPM1 and SRSF2 as dominant mutations preceding the AML whereas DNMT3A and TET2 mutations were stable over time ( 61 ). Therefore, understanding the correlation between clonal hematopoiesis and mechanisms of progression into leukemia remains crucial to design therapies targeting TP53 mutation.

Standard chemotherapy in TP53-Mutated MDS/AML

For younger and fit patients with AML, standard induction regimens traditionally include cytarabine in combination with an anthracycline, such as the “7+3” regimen or the FLAG-Ida protocol (fludarabine, cytarabine, idarubicin, and G-CSF) ( 66 ). However, the patients harboring TP53 mutations consistently demonstrate poor response to standard therapies, including intensive chemotherapy and allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). Outcomes are particularly unfavorable in cases with biallelic TP53 mutations and complex or monosomal karyotypes (CK/MK) ( 67 , 68 ). Multivariant analysis showed that TP53 mutations are independently associated with inferior overall outcomes (OS), reduced disease-free survival (DFS), and lower response rates (RR), irrespective of underlying cytogenetic abnormalities ( 69 ). Relapse rates following induction may reach up to 20-30% ( 53 , 70 ), with a median OS in the range of 4–9 months, underscoring the limited efficacy of conventional cytotoxic regimens in this high-risk population ( 71 – 74 ). Table 1 details outcomes of TP53-mutated AML and MDS in several clinical trials. Table 1 following standard chemotherapy.

CPX-351 in TP53-mutated AML

CPX-351 is a liposomal formulation of danorubicin and cytarabine approved for the treatment of therapy-related AML and AML with myelodysplasia-related changes, clinical entities in which TP53 mutations are commonly enriched. Although CPX-351 has demonstrated improved outcomes in secondary AML compared with conventional 7+3, its benefit in TP53-mutated disease appears limited ( 81 ). Patients with TP53-mutated AML treated with CPX-351 consistently show lower remission rates, early relapse, and short overall survival, particularly in the presence of multihit TP53 alterations and complex karyotypes ( 6 , 81 ). Overall, outcomes in this subgroup appear comparable to those achieved with other intensive cytotoxic regimens and remain substantially inferior to those observed in TP53-wild type AML, indicating that CPX-351 does not overcome TP53-associated chemoresistance ( 28 ).

Hypomethylating agents

Hypomethylating agents azacitidine and decitabine are the standard first-line treatments for elderly AML patients and those with high-risk MDS (HR-MDS). Azacitidine is a cytidine analog that after incorporation into DNA acts as a noncompetitive inhibitor of DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1) ( 88 ). In the AZA-001 phase III trial, azacitidine was compared with conventional care regimens (best supportive care, low-dose cytarabine, or intensive chemotherapy) in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Azacitidine significantly prolonged overall survival (median 24.5 vs 15.0 months; HR 0.58), delayed progression to acute myeloid leukemia and was associated with higher rates of hematologic response compared with conventional care ( 89 ). In the VIALE-A trial, which compared azacitidine plus venetoclax with azacitidine alone in previously untreated AML patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, azacitidine monotherapy was associated with median overall survival of 9.6 months and a composite complete remission (CRc) rate of 28.3% in the overall study population. However, outcomes in the TP53-mutated subgroup were particularly poor, with no observed remissions (CRc 0%) and a median overall survival of approximately 5–6 months, highlighting limited clinical benefit of single agent azacitidine in this high-risk molecular subset ( 90 ).

Decitabine, a deoxycytidine analog, functions by causing widespread hypomethylation, restoring expression of silenced tumor suppressors, and induction of DNA damage. Decitabine is currently FDA-approved for the treatment of MDS. However, it has not received FDA approval for AML, as a large randomized international phase III trial comparing decitabine with supportive care and low-dose cytarabine in elderly AML patients demonstrated improved complete remission rates but no statistically significant benefit in overall survival ( 91 ). In contrast, decitabine is approved by the European Medicines Agency and is recommended by the NCCN guidelines. Despite the lack of FDA approval, it continues to be used off-label for AML in the United States ( 92 ). The clinical trial with 10-day decitabine reported a 100% response rate (21/21) among TP53 mutated cases treated with 10-day decitabine regimen compared to 41% (32/78) in TP53 wild-type patients (p < 0.001) ( 75 ). Median overall survival was 12.7 months in patients with TP53 mutations and 15.4 months in those with wild-type TP53 (p = 0.79) ( 75 ). Importantly, these findings were derived from a non-randomized, single-institution study and have not been consistently reproduced in subsequent trial. For example, in a single institution phase II trial comparing 5-day and 10-day decitabine (DAC) regimens in TP53-mutated AML, response rates (29% vs 47%, p = 0.40) and overall survival (5.5 vs 4.9 months; p = 0.55) were not significantly different between regimens ( 93 ). A separate phase 3 trial demonstrated superior complete remission (CR) rates with decitabine (17.8%) compared to standard care (7.8%) in older AML patients with poor/intermediate-risk cytogenetics (p = 0.001). Median overall survival also favored decitabine (7.7 months vs. 5.0 months), although the difference did not reach statistical significance ( 91 ). Notably, reduction in TP53 variant allele frequency (VAF <5%) during HMA treatment has been associated with improved survival and is increasingly used as a prognostic biomarker, particularly in patients bridged to allo-HSCT ( 58 , 94 , 95 ). Although baseline VAF does not consistently predict response, VAF ≥ 40% has been linked to inferior outcomes (median OS 4.1 vs 7.7 months with HMA therapy) ( 94 , 95 ). While a 10-day monthly decitabine regimen (DEC10) has produced encouraging blast clearance but mutation reduction responses are not durable, necessitating consolidating strategies such as transplantation ( 75 ).

Venetoclax

Venetoclax, a BCL-2 inhibitor, promotes apoptosis by targeting anti-apoptotic proteins in leukemic blasts ( 96 , 97 ). It was initially promising in the TP53-mutated AML, as BCL-2 dependence was thought to be independent of p53 function ( 98 , 99 ). Venetoclax in combination with low intensity therapies (HMA or low dose cytarabine) gained regulatory approval for older or unfit patients with AML in 2022 ( 90 ). Subsequent studies showed limited benefit of venetoclax in TP53-mutated patients, especially those with multi-hit TP53 alterations. In a prospective phase trial evaluation 10-day decitabine plus venetoclax in elderly AML, TP53-mutated patients had a median OS of only 5.3 months, significantly shorter than TP53 wild-type patients (19.4 months; HR 4.67, p<0.00001), with lower MRD clearance and higher early mortality ( 100 ). A large retrospective analysis of 238 patients with newly diagnosed TP53 mutation AML receiving venetoclax-based therapy found no significant difference in OS (6.6 vs 5.7 months, p= 0.4) or relapse free-survival (4.7 vs 3.5 month; p=0.43) when compared to non-venetoclax-based regimens ( 101 ).

Venetoclax has been studied in combination with intensive chemotherapy regimens such as FLAG-Ida and 7+3. In a phase 1b trial, 34 patients with newly diagnosed AML received standard 7+3 induction (daunorubicin plus cytarabine) alongside venetoclax administered for escalating durations (8, 11, or 14 days) ( 102 ). The combination was well tolerated in fit adults up to 75 years of age, with no induction mortality, and achieved high efficacy (composite complete remission in 85.3% of patients and MRD negativity in 86%). Responses were consistent across most ELN 2022 risk groups, with the notable exception of the TP53-mutated subgroup (5 of 34 patients), where remission durability and survival outcomes remained poor ( 102 ).

Similarly, a recent study of intensive chemotherapy plus venetoclax ( NCT03214562 ), 138 AML patients (77 newly diagnosed, 61 relapsed/refractory) receiving FLAG-IDA (Fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), and idarubicin) plus venetoclax achieved a 97% overall response rate, with 95% of patients attaining a composite complete remission and 90% clearing measurable residual disease by flow cytometry ( 86 ). Two-thirds remained alive and event-free at three years. Importantly, the study reported six newly diagnosed patients harboring TP53 mutations (two with VAFs < 5%; one bi-allelic with VAFs 20% and 22%; and three with VAFs 17%, 34% and 54%), all achieved an MRD-negative CRc, but remissions were short with median duration of response 8 months. Five of six subsequently relapsed and died, with median overall survival of 13 months ( 86 ). These results highlight that even the most active regimens may offer only transient benefit in multi-hit TP53-mutated AML, underscoring the urgent need for novel strategies in this high-risk subgroup.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT)

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT) remains the only potentially curative option for patients with TP53-mutated AML and MDS. However, outcomes are poor, with relapse and mortality rates significantly higher, up to 80-90% compared to TP53 wild-type patients ( 103 – 105 ). In a recent retrospective analysis of 240 patients with TP53-mutated AML or MDS undergoing allogeneic HSCT from matched related, matched unrelated, or haploidentical donors, TP53 variant allele frequency (VAF) with cytogenetic features stratified post-transplant outcomes ( 106 ). TP53 VAF and cytogenetics were the strongest predictors of outcome, defining three prognostic groups: patients with TP53 VAF ≥50% had a 2-year PFS of 3%; those with TP53 VAF <50% and complex cytogenetics or del(5q)/del(7q) had a 2-year PFS of 22%; and patients with TP53 VAF <50% without these abnormalities achieved a favorable 2-year PFS of 60% ( 106 ). Such data suggests that TP53-mutated AML/MDS should not be treated as a single high-risk entity.

Several barriers limit transplant success in this population (1): Older age and comorbidities often necessitate reduced-intensity conditioning compromising MRD clearance ( 107 ) (2); Outcomes are influenced more by baseline TP53 status than by mutational burden at remission ( 108 ) (3); Rapid disease progression in TP53-mutated AML often negates the graft-versus leukemia (GVL) effect, diminishing transplant efficacy ( 109 ). Importantly, data suggest that patients transplanted in CR may derive significant benefit, with reduced relapse and mortality risk ( 110 ). In a prospective study comparing allogeneic SCT with donor versus no-donor control group in patients with high-risk MDS ( 111 ), overall survival was significantly higher at four years in patients with a donor compared to those without (37% vs 15%), and disease-related mortality was lower (37% vs 73%). Notably, the survival advantage became evident only after the second year, reflecting early transplant-related mortality ( 111 ). Therefore, early identification of the transplant-eligible patients achieving deep remissions remain critical goals.

Newer therapies (future perspective)

Given the limited efficacy of current treatments, novel therapies targeting TP53-mutated AML/MDS are under active investigation and may serve as effective bridging or maintenance strategies after transplant. A schematic overview of emerging therapeutic strategies in TP53-mutated AML/MDS is shown in Figure 2 .

Targeted therapies.

Therapeutic approaches in TP53-mutated AML/MDS include:

Reactivation of mutant p53: Agents such as Eprenetapopt (APR-246) and COTI-2 restore wild-type conformation and function through covalent binding or refolding mechanisms ( 112 – 115 )

Synthetic lethality: G 2 /M checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., CHK1/CHk2, WEE1, PLK1 inhibitors) selectively kill TP53-deficient cells by overriding DNA-damage arrest ( 116 – 118 )

Mutant p53 degradation: Statins, HSP90 inhibitors (e.g., PU-H71), and HDAC inhibitors (e.g., vorinostat) induce p53 degradation via proteasome or chaperone disruption ( 119 – 124 )

Kinase pathway blockade: Syk inhibitors (entospletinib) and ROS1 inhibitors (entrectinib) aim to inhibit leukemogenic survival signaling ( 125 – 127 )

Arsenic trioxide (TO): Rescues wild-type conformation in specific TP53 mutants via cysteine targeting, and may induce ferroptosis ( 128 )

Table 2 below highlights selected targeted therapies in TP53-mutated AML and MDS.

Eprenetapopt (APR-246)

Eprenetapopt (APR-246) is a small molecule that targets mutant p53 by converting mutant p53 back to its wild-type conformation and function. Chemically, it is a methylated analogue of PRIMA-1, which is spontaneously converted into the active metabolite methylene quinuclidinone (MQ). MQ targets the thiol groups of cysteines in mutant p53, creating covalent links that refold the protein and reactivate its tumor‐suppressor role ( 113 , 114 ). Preclinical data suggest additional mechanism including oxidative stress induction, ferroptosis, and dNTP depletion ( 130 – 133 ). Combination with azacitidine demonstrated synergy in vitro ( 134 ).

In a phase Ib/II trial, eprenetapopt + azacitidine produced CR rates of 50% in TP53-mutant MDS and 36% in AML, with molecular remissions (TP53 VAF <5%) in 38% of responders. Bridging to allo-HSCT in molecular responders lead to improved survival (OS not reached vs 9.1 months) ( 80 ). Despite promising early-phase data, subsequent trials yielded more modest results. A triplet regimen (eprenetapopt + azacitidine + venetoclax) showed a CR/CRi of 53% and a median OS of 8 months, similar to HMA-VEN alone in newly diagnosed AML patients. A phase II post-transplant maintenance study reported a median relapse-free survival (RFS) of 12.5 months and a median OS of 20.6 months, although these data were derived from small, non-randomized cohorts ( 135 ). Recently, the long-term follow-up of the aforementioned phase 2 trials ( 80 , 132 ) was published ( 87 ). By intention-to-treat, the overall response rate was 69%, including 41% CR, with TP53 clearance (VAF <5%) achieved in 40%. Median CR duration was 10.6 months and median OS 11.8 months. While outcomes were markedly better in patients achieving CR or TP53 clearance before allogeneic transplantation ( 87 ), eprenetapopt-based therapy has not consistently resulted in durable remission or long-term survival benefit in TP53-mutated AML/MDS.

COTI-2, a third-generation thiosemicarbazone, also restores p53 function by binding to mutant p53 and reactivating its tumor-suppressive transcriptional activity. In addition to p53 reactivation, it exhibits p53-independent effects, including DNA damage induction, AMPK activation, and mTOR pathway inhibition ( 114 , 115 , 136 ). Preclinical studies have shown activity in TP53-mutant solid tumors, and early-phase clinical trials in gynecologic and head and neck cancers have reported acceptable safety profiles ( 136 , 137 ). Other agents and small molecules that show promises include: CP-31398: a p53 refolding molecule ( 138 ); RITA: disrupts the p53-MDM2 interaction to restore p53 activity ( 139 ); PK110007 ( 140 ); HO-3867, a STAT 3 inhibitor ( 141 ); and PK7088 ( 142 ).

CD47 targeting agents: magrolimab (Hu5F9-G4)

CD47 is a transmembrane “don’t eat me” signal overexpressed on both healthy and malignant hematopoietic cells, including leukemic stem cells (LSCs), where it binds signal regulatory protein α (SIRPα) on macrophages to inhibit phagocytosis ( 143 , 144 ). Magrolimab, a first in class humanized anti-CD47 IgG4 monoclonal antibody, showed initial promising results in combination with azacitidine in TP53-mutated AML and MDS, with early-phase studies reporting response rates of 40-71% and median overall survival of up to 16.3 months ( 144 , 145 ). However, results from three randomized phase III trials- ENHANCE (MDS), ENHANCE-2 (TP53-mutant AML), ENHANCE-3 (unfit AML) - failed to show survival benefit. In ENHANCE, the magrolimumab arm has 139 deaths versus 124 in the control group, with a hazard ratio (HR) for OS of 1.254 (95% CI, 0.980-1.605), leading to discontinuation ( 146 , 147 ). In ENHANCE-2, the median OS with magrolimumab plus azacitidine was 4.4 months versus 6.6 months with azacitidine alone (HR 1.13; 95% CI, 0.78-1.64) ( 146 – 148 ). Similarly, in ENHANCE-3, patients with previously untreated AML who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy received either magrolimab or placebo, each in combination with venetoclax and azacitidine. It failed to improve OS (10.7 vs 14.1 months, HR 1.18; 95% CI, 0.85-1.64) or remission rates compared to placebo ( 149 ). As of 2024, development of magrolimab in hematologic malignancies has been discontinued, and the FDA has placed a full clinical hold on all related trials.

Ligufalimab (AK117)

Ligufalimab (AK117) is a second-generation humanized IgG4 anti-CD47 antibody. Unlike magrolimab, ligufalimab does not cause red blood cell agglutination, even at high concentrations. It has been shown to induce only mild, transient anemia in non-human primates ( 150 ). Preclinically, it showed strong phagocytic activity and tumor inhibition in xenograft models. Notably, AK117 eliminates the need for a priming dose, increased hemoglobin thresholds, or additional monitoring ( 150 ). In a phase 1b trial in newly diagnosed higher-risk MDS (n=72; median age 66), ligufalimab plus azacitidine achieved a 48.1% CR rate with manageable safety profile ( 151 ). Anemia occurred in 29.1% of patients, grade ≥3 in 24.4%, with 61.5% of transfusion-dependent patients achieved independence ( 151 ). Given such promising results, a phase 2 study ( NCT06196203 ) is currently evaluating ligufalimab with azacitidine in 90 higher-risk MDS patients in the U.S. and China, randomized 1:1:1 to ligufalimab 30 mg/kg every two weeks, ligufalimab 20 mg/kg every two weeks, or placebo ( 152 ). The primary endpoint is complete remission rate (CRR) per International Working Group (IWG) 2023, with secondary endpoints including overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS) and others ( 152 ).

Sabatolimab

T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain 3 (TIM-3) is an inhibitory checkpoint that is expressed on leukemic stem cells, blasts and IFN-γ producing T lymphocytes, particularly in TP53-mutant disease. MDS/AML cells overexpress TIM-3 and its ligand galatectin-9 which forms an autocrine signaling loop to enhance leukemic stem cells (LSCs) maintenance ( 153 – 155 ). Sabatolimab (MBG453) is a humanized, IgG4 antibody targeting TIM-3 on myeloid cells which eliminates AML LSCs. In a phase Ib trial evaluated sabatolimab and azacitidine in unfit AML or HR-MDS, ORR was 71.4% in MDS and CR/CRi rate of 40% in newly diagnosed mutated AML ( 156 ). However, a subsequent randomized phase II STIMULUS-MDS1 trial did not meet its primary endpoints, with no significant improvement in complete remission rate or progression-free survival compared to hypomethylating agents alone (CR 22% vs. 18%, p=0.77; PFS 11.1 vs. 8.5 months, p=0.1022) compared to placebo ( 85 ). Taken together, these findings indicate that despite a strong biological rationale and early-phase activity, sabatolimab has not demonstrated clear clinical benefit in randomized studies.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors-based regimens

Binding of the programmed death-1 (PD-1) receptor to its ligand PD-L1 produces immunosuppressive microenvironment which is hijacked by the leukemic blasts for unrestricted proliferation ( 157 ). It was reported that AML blasts with TP53 mutations had augmented upregulation of PD-1 which was also seen in patients treated with HMAs ( 158 – 161 ). This led to an interest in combination therapies to overcome the resistance. However, the clinical outcomes have been variable and overall limited.

A phase 2 combination study of nivolumab and 5-azacitidine reported a 33% ORR overall, and 52% among patients who had not previously received HMAs. Additionally, factors like presence of CD3+ infiltrate, ASXL1 mutation, lower burden (<20% BM blasts) were associated with improved overall response rates ( 76 ). However, a recent randomized phase 2 trial for HR-MDS and older patients with AML of azacitidine with or without durvalumab as first line therapy showed similar overall response rates ( 162 ). Similarly, combination of anti-cytotoxic T-cells CTLA-4 antibody (ipilimumab) to 5-AZA and nivolumab did not show significant difference when compared to venetoclax + 5-AZA or 5-AZA + nivolumab ( 163 ). Overall, immune checkpoint inhibitor-based strategies have not demonstrated a consistent improvement in overall survival in TP53-mutated AML or MDS.

CAR-T

Chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T) emerged as a novel therapy with dramatic response rate in relapsed B-cell malignancies and multiple myeloma ( 164 – 171 ). This led to studies to determine the efficacy of CAR-T in patients with AML/MDS, especially TP53 mutated patients. The key element would be to direct the CAR-T cells against specific myeloid antigen like CD33, CD38, CD70, CD117, CD123, CD371, CLL1, FLT3, and others. Unfortunately, functional TP53 loss in AML confers resistance to CAR T-cell therapy via longer interaction period between CAR T-cells with TP53-deficient AML cells, which causes T-cell exhaustion and reduced CAR-T proliferation ultimately leading to leukemic cell expansion ( 164 ). It is known that CTLs and natural killer (NK)-cells apoptosis is p53-mediated on the target cells ( 172 – 175 ). Interestingly, the mevalonate pathway was upregulated through transcriptional profiling of the TP53-mutated AML cells under the CAR-T cell therapy. Furthermore, the effect of simvastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor that blocks the rate-limiting step in cholesterol synthesis, was observed as a rescue mechanism for CAR-T cell therapy ( 164 ). Additionally, ineffective activation of Wnt pathway, which is essential for development, differentiation and survival of mature T lymphocytes may contribute to the CAR-T cell resistance in the TP53 deficient AML cells ( 164 ). These findings offer potential pathways to overcome the resistance of the TP53 mutated AML cells to CAR-T cell therapy.

Other novel approaches

TP53-Y220C PC14586

Y220C is a common hotspot mutation, seen in approximately 1% of all solid cancers and constitutes <5% of all mutations in TP53m-AML ( 15 ). This mutation creates a surface crevice that leads to an unstable p53 structure and drives carcinogenesis ( 176 – 178 ). PC14586 (PMV Pharmaceuticals) was designed as the first orally bioavailable, reactivator of p53 Y220C mutant. It binds to Y220C p53 which results in stabilization of the molecule, reactivating the transcription mediated cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis. The preliminary efficacy was seen in patients with solid cancers who achieve partial responses and stable disease in an ongoing phase I trial ( 179 ). It was also reported that combination therapies with XPO-1, MDM2 or Bcl-2 inhibitors leads to upregulation of PC14586-induced p53 target proteins causing massive apoptosis ( 129 ). Further trials are needed to determine the efficacy and durability of this novel therapy.

Arsenic trioxide (ATO)

ATO is a drug used for the treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia ( 180 ). Structural studies have revealed that ATO binds a cryptic allosteric site composed of three cysteine residues within the p53 DNA-binding domain and helps stabilize certain misfolded TP53 mutants and partially restores function ( 181 ). Further mechanistic studies using AML cell-line models demonstrated that ATO also induces ferroptotic cell death in TP53-mutant cells by depleting glutathione peroxidase 4 (GPX4) and the cystine transporter SLC7A11 ( 182 ). An ongoing Phase I trial in China ( NCT03855371 ) is evaluating the safety and efficacy of decitabine in combination with intravenous ATO in patients with high-risk MDS harboring TP53 mutations. The study prioritizes selection of high-risk TP53-mutant MDS patients with predicted sensitivity to the combination, informed by prior mechanistic studies. A separate ongoing Phase II study ( NCT06778187 ) is investigating oral arsenic trioxide combined with ascorbic acid and investigator-selected low-intensity therapy in previously untreated or relapsed/refractory TP53-mutated AML, MDS, or CMML. The backbone therapy includes a hypomethylating agent e.g. azacitidine, decitabine, or decitabine-cedazuridine with or without venetoclax. The results of tolerability and response data are yet to be reported.

Bispecific antibodies

Flotetuzumab is a CD123×CD3 bispecific DART (dual-affinity retargeting) antibody that facilitates T-cell activity against CD123-expressing AML blasts. This facilitates T-cell redirection and activation, leading to targeted lysis of AML cells. CD123 subunit is highly expressed in over 90% of AML blasts and leukemic stem cells particularly in adverse-risk subgroups. Upon binding, Flotetuzumab triggers dose-dependent T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity and cytokine production ( 183 ).

In a phase I/II study (CP-MGD006-01), Flotetuzumab was evaluated in relapsed/refractory AML. Among 22 patients, 15 had TP53 mutations and/or 17p deletions. In this subgroup, a CR/CRi rate of 47% was observed, with a median OS of 10.3 months ( 183 ). Notably, data showed that flotezumab upregulated the major histocompatibility class II (MHC-II) in AML via JAK-STAT signaling, particularly mediated by the local production of interferon-γ. These findings suggest that T-cell immunotherapy can target relapsed AML, particularly in patients with immune-infiltrated disease ( 184 , 185 ).

Another agent tagraxofusp (SL-401), anti-toxin IL3 fusion protein against CD-123 which was approved for blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm, was tested in clinical trials for relapsed/refractory CD123-positive AML ( NCT04342962 ). Preliminary findings indicate that tagraxofusp produced an overall response rate of 34.8% in relapsed/refractory CD123-positive AML, with capillary leak syndrome occurring in 21.7% of patients ( 186 ). A recent phase 1b trial evaluated tagraxofusp in combination with azacytidine with or without venetoclax in AML ( 84 ). Among 26 patients with adverse-risk AML, 50% (13/26) carried TP53 mutations, most of which were multi-hit (9/13). In this subgroup, the overall response rate was 54% (7/13), and 57% (4/7) of responders achieved MRD negativity by flow cytometry. Median overall survival was 9.5 months (95% CI, 1.8–NA), notably longer than the ~5 months typically reported in poor-risk TP53-mutated AML treated with AZA-VEN alone. Median progression-free survival was 5.1 months (95% CI, 1.8–NA) ( 84 ).

Several ongoing clinical trials are further investigating tagraxofusp-based regimens, including its combination with low-intensity chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory AML ( NCT06561152 ), with or without VEN in newly diagnosed secondary AML ( NCT05442216 ) and with VEN + AZA in untreated AML ineligible for intensive therapy ( NCT06456463 ).

Another innovative strategy targets the common TP53 hotspot mutation R175H as a therapeutic neoantigen ( 187 ). A CD3 bispecific antibody was engineered to recognize the mutant p53R175H peptide presented by HLA-A*02:01, redirecting T-cell activity against tumor cells. Despite the very low density of peptide–HLA complexes on the cell surface, this bispecific antibody triggered robust cytokine release and selective lysis of R175H-mutant cancer cells in vitro , without off-target activity, and suppressed or regressed tumors in NSG mice engrafted with human T cells ( 187 ). These findings provide the first proof-of-concept that TP53 neoantigens can be effectively targeted with antibody-based immunotherapy.

Conclusion

In summary, TP53-mutated MDS and AML represent a clinically distinct, high-risk subgroup marked by complex karyotypes, chemoresistance, and dismal outcomes. Somatic TP53 alterations disrupt the p53 tumor-suppressor network, abrogating its capacity to enforce cell-cycle arrest, DNA repair, and apoptosis under stress. As a result, standard cytotoxic regimens (7+3, FLAG-Ida), hypomethylating agents ± venetoclax, and even allogeneic stem-cell transplantation yield suboptimal response rates and short median survival (6–12 months). Although emerging therapeutic strategies aimed at restoring p53 function, modulating epigenetic programs, or engaging immune-based mechanisms have generated considerable interest, their clinical benefit remains investigational without a clear, reproducible survival advantage. This underscores the continued unmet need for novel therapeutic approaches, innovative trial designs and analysis of long-term outcome data.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. For more examples of citing other documents and general questions regarding reference style, please refer to Citing Medicine.

Footnotes

Edited by: Mario I Vega , University of California, Los Angeles. United States

Reviewed by: Carola Riva , University of Genoa, Italy

Carlos Rodríguez Medina , University Hospital of Gran Canaria Dr. Negrin, Spain

Author contributions

SD: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Methodology. WL: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. JS: Writing – review & editing. MF: Writing – review & editing. CC: Writing – review & editing. GM: Writing – review & editing. MK: Formal analysis, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Validation.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The reviewer CR declared a past co-authorship with the author CC to the handling editor.

Correction note

A correction has been made to this article. Details can be found at: 10.3389/fonc.2026.1823072 .

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Portions of this manuscript’s language formatting were assisted by OpenAI’s ChatGPT, under the supervision and review of the authors.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

1. Shallis RM, Wang R, Davidoff A, Ma X, Zeidan AM. Epidemiology of acute myeloid leukemia: Recent progress and enduring challenges. Blood Rev. (2019) 36:70–87. doi: 10.1016/j.blre.2019.04.005, PMID:

2. Acute Myeloid Leukemia — Cancer Stat Facts . Available online at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/amyl.html (Accessed October 16, 2025).

3. Bhansali RS, Pratz KW, Lai C. Recent advances in targeted therapies in acute myeloid leukemia. J Hematol Oncol. (2023) 16:29. doi: 10.1186/s13045-023-01424-6, PMID:

4. Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian R, Thiele J, Borowitz MJ, Le Beau MM, et al. The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood. (2016) 127:2391–405. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-03-643544, PMID:

5. Khoury JD, Solary E, Abla O, Akkari Y, Alaggio R, Apperley JF, et al. The 5th edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours: Myeloid and Histiocytic/Dendritic Neoplasms. Leukemia. (2022) 36:1703–19. doi: 10.1038/s41375-022-01613-1, PMID:

6. Weinberg OK, Siddon A, Madanat YF, Gagan J, Arber DA, Dal Cin P, et al. TP53 mutation defines a unique subgroup within complex karyotype de novo and therapy-related MDS/AML. Blood Adv. (2022) 6:2847–53. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021006239, PMID:

7. Grob T, Al Hinai ASA, Sanders MA, Kavelaars FG, Rijken M, Gradowska PL, et al. Molecular characterization of mutant TP53 acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. Blood. (2022) 139:2347–54. doi: 10.1182/blood.2021014472, PMID:

8. Haase D, Stevenson KE, Neuberg D, Maciejewski JP, Nazha A, Sekeres MA, et al. TP53 mutation status divides myelodysplastic syndromes with complex karyotypes into distinct prognostic subgroups. Leukemia. (2019) 33:1747–58. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0351-2, PMID:

9. Hunter AM, Sallman DA. Current status and new treatment approaches in TP53 mutated AML. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. (2019) 32:134–44. doi: 10.1016/j.beha.2019.05.004, PMID:

10. Vousden KH, Lu X. Live or let die: the cell’s response to p53. Nat Rev Cancer. (2002) 2:594–604. doi: 10.1038/nrc864, PMID:

11. Bode AM, Dong Z. Post-translational modification of p53 in tumorigenesis. Nat Rev Cancer. (2004) 4:793–805. doi: 10.1038/nrc1455, PMID:

12. Levine AJ. p53, the cellular gatekeeper for growth and division. Cell. (1997) 88:323–31. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81871-1, PMID:

13. Kastenhuber ER, Lowe SW. Putting p53 in Context. Cell. (2017) 170:1062–78. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.08.028, PMID:

14. Ley TJ, Miller C, Ding L, Raphael BJ, Mungall AJ, Robertson A, et al. Genomic and epigenomic landscapes of adult de novo acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. (2013) 368:2059–74. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301689, PMID:

15. Papaemmanuil E, Gerstung M, Bullinger L, Gaidzik VI, Paschka P, Roberts ND, et al. Genomic Classification and Prognosis in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. N Engl J Med. (2016) 374:2209–21. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1516192, PMID:

16. Zhang L, McGraw KL, Sallman DA, List AF. The role of p53 in myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia: molecular aspects and clinical implications. Leuk Lymphoma. (2017) 58:1777–90. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2016.1266625, PMID:

17. Kadia TM, Jain P, Ravandi F, Garcia-Manero G, Andreef M, Takahashi K, et al. TP53 mutations in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: Clinicomolecular characteristics, response to therapy, and outcomes. Cancer. (2016) 122:3484–91. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30203, PMID:

18. DiNardo CD, Wei AH. How I treat acute myeloid leukemia in the era of new drugs. Blood. (2020) 135:85–96. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019001239, PMID:

19. Lindsley RC, Mar BG, Mazzola E, Grauman PV, Shareef S, Allen SL, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia ontogeny is defined by distinct somatic mutations. Blood. (2015) 125:1367–76. doi: 10.1182/blood-2014-11-610543, PMID:

20. Vogelstein B, Lane D, Levine AJ. Surfing the p53 network. Nature. (2000) 408:307–10. doi: 10.1038/35042675, PMID:

21. Bullock AN, Fersht AR. Rescuing the function of mutant p53. Nat Rev Cancer. (2001) 1:68–76. doi: 10.1038/35094077, PMID:

22. Sebaa A, Ades L, Baran-Marzack F, Mozziconacci MJ, Penther D, Dobbelstein S, et al. Incidence of 17p deletions and TP53 mutation in myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia with 5q deletion. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. (2012) 51:1086–92. doi: 10.1002/gcc.21993, PMID:

23. Harris CC. Structure and function of the p53 tumor suppressor gene: clues for rational cancer therapeutic strategies. J Natl Cancer Inst. (1996) 88:1442–55. doi: 10.1093/jnci/88.20.1442, PMID:

24. Brady CA, Jiang D, Mello SS, Johnson TM, Jarvis LA, Kozak MM, et al. Distinct p53 transcriptional programs dictate acute DNA-damage responses and tumor suppression. Cell. (2011) 145:571–83. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.03.035, PMID:

25. Hinds P, Finlay C, Levine AJ. Mutation is required to activate the p53 gene for cooperation with the ras oncogene and transformation. J Virol. (1989) 63:739–46. doi: 10.1128/jvi.63.2.739-746.1989, PMID:

26. Klimovich B, Merle N, Neumann M, Elmshäuser S, Nist A, Mernberger M, et al. p53 partial loss-of-function mutations sensitize to chemotherapy. Oncogene. (2022) 41:1011–23. doi: 10.1038/s41388-021-02141-5, PMID:

27. Welch JS. Patterns of mutations in TP53 mutated AML. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. (2018) 31:379–83. doi: 10.1016/j.beha.2018.09.010, PMID:

28. Marks JA, Wang X, Fenu EM, Bagg A, Lai C. TP53 in AML and MDS: The new (old) kid on the block. Blood Rev. (2023) 60:101055. doi: 10.1016/j.blre.2023.101055, PMID:

29. Olivier M, Hollstein M, Hainaut P. TP53 mutations in human cancers: origins, consequences, and clinical use. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. (2010) 2:a001008. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a001008, PMID:

30. Lakin ND, Jackson SP. Regulation of p53 in response to DNA damage. Oncogene. (1999) 18:7644–55. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1203015, PMID:

31. Momand J, Wu HH, Dasgupta G. MDM2–master regulator of the p53 tumor suppressor protein. Gene. (2000) 242:15–29. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1119(99)00487-4, PMID:

32. Bieging KT, Mello SS, Attardi LD. Unravelling mechanisms of p53-mediated tumour suppression. Nat Rev Cancer. (2014) 14:359–70. doi: 10.1038/nrc3711, PMID:

33. Quintás-Cardama A, Hu C, Qutub A, Qiu YH, Zhang X, Post SM, et al. p53 pathway dysfunction is highly prevalent in acute myeloid leukemia independent of TP53 mutational status. Leukemia. (2017) 31:1296–305. doi: 10.1038/leu.2016.350, PMID:

34. Kruse JP, Gu W. SnapShot: p53 posttranslational modifications. Cell. (2008) 133:930–30.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.05.020, PMID:

35. Gu B, Zhu WG. Surf the post-translational modification network of p53 regulation. Int J Biol Sci. (2012) 8:672–84. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.4283, PMID:

36. Sigal A, Rotter V. Oncogenic mutations of the p53 tumor suppressor: the demons of the guardian of the genome. Cancer Res. (2000) 60:6788–93.

37. Brooks CL, Gu W. Ubiquitination, phosphorylation and acetylation: the molecular basis for p53 regulation. Curr Opin Cell Biol. (2003) 15:164–71. doi: 10.1016/s0955-0674(03)00003-6, PMID:

38. Appella E, Anderson CW. Post-translational modifications and activation of p53 by genotoxic stresses. Eur J Biochem. (2001) 268:2764–72. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1327.2001.02225.x, PMID:

39. Chen D, Kon N, Zhong J, Zhang P, Yu L, Gu W. Differential effects on ARF stability by normal versus oncogenic levels of c-Myc expression. Mol Cell. (2013) 51:46–56. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2013.05.006, PMID:

40. Faderl S, Kantarjian HM, Estey E, Manshouri T, Chan CY, Rahman Elsaied A, et al. The prognostic significance of p16(INK4a)/p14(ARF) locus deletion and MDM-2 protein expression in adult acute myelogenous leukemia. Cancer. (2000) 89:1976–82. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(20001101)89:9<1976::AID-CNCR14>3.0.CO;2-E.

41. Müller-Tidow C, Metzelder SK, Buerger H, Packeisen J, Ganser A, Heil G, et al. Expression of the p14ARF tumor suppressor predicts survival in acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. (2004) 18:720–6. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2403296, PMID:

42. Wattel E, Preudhomme C, Hecquet B, Vanrumbeke M, Quesnel B, Dervite I, et al. p53 mutations are associated with resistance to chemotherapy and short survival in hematologic malignancies. Blood. (1994) 84:3148–57. doi: 10.1182/blood.V84.9.3148.3148, PMID:

43. Fenaux P, Preudhomme C, Quiquandon I, Jonveaux P, Laï JL, Vanrumbeke M, et al. Mutations of the P53 gene in acute myeloid leukaemia. Br J Haematol. (1992) 80:178–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.1992.tb08897.x, PMID:

44. Slingerland JM, Minden MD, Benchimol S. Mutation of the p53 gene in human acute myelogenous leukemia. Blood. (1991) 77:1500–7. doi: 10.1182/blood.V77.7.1500.1500, PMID:

45. Shih AH, Chung SS, Dolezal EK, Zhang SJ, Abdel-Wahab OI, Park CY, et al. Mutational analysis of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myelogenous leukemia. Haematologica. (2013) 98:908–12. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2012.076729, PMID:

46. Ben-Yehuda D, Krichevsky S, Caspi O, Rund D, Polliack A, Abeliovich D, et al. Microsatellite instability and p53 mutations in therapy-related leukemia suggest mutator phenotype. Blood. (1996) 88:4296–303. doi: 10.1182/blood.V88.11.4296.bloodjournal88114296, PMID:

47. Ok CY, Patel KP, Garcia-Manero G, Routbort MJ, Peng J, Tang G, et al. TP53 mutation characteristics in therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia is similar to de novo diseases. J Hematol Oncol. (2015) 8:45. doi: 10.1186/s13045-015-0139-z, PMID:

48. Bernard E, Nannya Y, Hasserjian RP, Devlin SM, Tuechler H, Medina-Martinez JS, et al. Implications of TP53 allelic state for genome stability, clinical presentation and outcomes in myelodysplastic syndromes. Nat Med. (2020) 26:1549–56. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1008-z, PMID:

49. Lodé L, Ameur A, Coste T, Ménard A, Richebourg S, Gaillard JB, et al. Single-molecule DNA sequencing of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes with multiple TP53 alterations. Haematologica. (2018) 103:e13–6. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2017.176719, PMID:

50. Scharenberg C, Giai V, Pellagatti A, Saft L, Dimitriou M, Jansson M, et al. Progression in patients with low- and intermediate-1-risk del(5q) myelodysplastic syndromes is predicted by a limited subset of mutations. Haematologica. (2017) 102:498–508. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2016.152025, PMID:

51. Jädersten M, Saft L, Smith A, Kulasekararaj A, Pomplun S, Göhring G, et al. TP53 mutations in low-risk myelodysplastic syndromes with del(5q) predict disease progression. J Clin Oncol. (2011) 29:1971–9. doi: 10.1200/jco.2010.31.8576, PMID:

52. Forment JV, Kaidi A, Jackson SP. Chromothripsis and cancer: causes and consequences of chromosome shattering. Nat Rev Cancer. (2012) 12:663–70. doi: 10.1038/nrc3352, PMID:

53. Rücker FG, Dolnik A, Blätte TJ, Teleanu V, Ernst A, Thol F, et al. Chromothripsis is linked to TP53 alteration, cell cycle impairment, and dismal outcome in acute myeloid leukemia with complex karyotype. Haematologica. (2018) 103:e17–20. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2017.180497, PMID:

54. Loschi M, Fenaux P, Cluzeau T. How I Treat TP53-Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes. Cancers (Basel). (2022) 14. doi: 10.3390/cancers14184519, PMID:

55. Wong TN, Link DC. Are TP53 mutations all alike? Hematol: Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. (2024) 2024:321. doi: 10.1182/HEMATOLOGY.2024000556, PMID:

56. Duncavage EJ, Schroeder MC, O’Laughlin M, Wilson R, MacMillan S, Bohannon A, et al. Genome Sequencing as an Alternative to Cytogenetic Analysis in Myeloid Cancers. N Engl J Med. (2021) 384:924–35. doi: 10.1056/NEJMOA2024534, PMID:

57. Short NJ, Montalban-Bravo G, Hwang H, Ning J, Franquiz MJ, Kanagal-Shamanna R, et al. Prognostic and therapeutic impacts of mutant TP53 variant allelic frequency in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Adv. (2020) 4:5681–9. doi: 10.1182/BLOODADVANCES.2020003120, PMID:

58. Sallman DA, Komrokji R, Vaupel C, Cluzeau T, Geyer SM, McGraw KL, et al. Impact of TP53 mutation variant allele frequency on phenotype and outcomes in myelodysplastic syndromes. Leukemia. (2016) 30:666–73. doi: 10.1038/leu.2015.304, PMID:

59. Silver AJ, Jaiswal S. Clonal hematopoiesis: Pre-cancer PLUS. Adv Cancer Res. (2019) 141:85–128. doi: 10.1016/bs.acr.2018.12.003, PMID:

60. Corces-Zimmerman MR, Hong WJ, Weissman IL, Medeiros BC, Majeti R. Preleukemic mutations in human acute myeloid leukemia affect epigenetic regulators and persist in remission. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. (2014) 111:2548–53. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1324297111, PMID:

61. Desai P, Mencia-Trinchant N, Savenkov O, Simon MS, Cheang G, Lee S, et al. Somatic mutations precede acute myeloid leukemia years before diagnosis. Nat Med. (2018) 24:1015–23. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0081-z, PMID:

62. Genovese G, Kähler AK, Handsaker RE, Lindberg J, Rose SA, Bakhoum SF, et al. Clonal hematopoiesis and blood-cancer risk inferred from blood DNA sequence. N Engl J Med. (2014) 371:2477–87. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1409405, PMID:

63. Jaiswal S, Fontanillas P, Flannick J, Manning A, Grauman PV, Mar BG, et al. Age-related clonal hematopoiesis associated with adverse outcomes. N Engl J Med. (2014) 371:2488–98. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1408617, PMID:

64. Bolton KL, Ptashkin RN, Gao T, Braunstein L, Devlin SM, Kelly D, et al. Cancer therapy shapes the fitness landscape of clonal hematopoiesis. Nat Genet. (2020) 52:1219–26. doi: 10.1038/S41588-020-00710-0, PMID:

65. George B, Kantarjian H, Baran N, Krocker JD, Rios A. TP53 in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Molecular Aspects and Patterns of Mutation. Int J Mol Sci. (2021) 22. doi: 10.3390/ijms221910782, PMID:

66. Kantarjian H, Kadia T, DiNardo C, Daver N, Borthakur G, Jabbour E, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia: current progress and future directions. Blood Cancer J. (2021) 11:41. doi: 10.1038/s41408-021-00425-3, PMID:

67. Bally C, Adès L, Renneville A, Sebert M, Eclache V, Preudhomme C, et al. Prognostic value of TP53 gene mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia treated with azacitidine. Leuk Res. (2014) 38:751–5. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2014.03.012, PMID:

68. Bejar R, Stevenson KE, Caughey B, Lindsley RC, Mar BG, Stojanov P, et al. Somatic mutations predict poor outcome in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. J Clin Oncol. (2014) 32:2691–8. doi: 10.1200/jco.2013.52.3381, PMID:

69. Bowen D, Groves MJ, Burnett AK, Patel Y, Allen C, Green C, et al. TP53 gene mutation is frequent in patients with acute myeloid leukemia and complex karyotype, and is associated with very poor prognosis. Leukemia. (2009) 23:203–6. doi: 10.1038/leu.2008.173, PMID:

70. Grossmann V, Schnittger S, Kohlmann A, Eder C, Roller A, Dicker F, et al. A novel hierarchical prognostic model of AML solely based on molecular mutations. Blood. (2012) 120:2963–72. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-03-419622, PMID:

71. Christiansen DH, Andersen MK, Pedersen-Bjergaard J. Mutations with loss of heterozygosity of p53 are common in therapy-related myelodysplasia and acute myeloid leukemia after exposure to alkylating agents and significantly associated with deletion or loss of 5q, a complex karyotype, and a poor prognosis. J Clin Oncol. (2001) 19:1405–13. doi: 10.1200/jco.2001.19.5.1405, PMID:

72. Ohgami RS, Ma L, Merker JD, Gotlib JR, Schrijver I, Zehnder JL, et al. Next-generation sequencing of acute myeloid leukemia identifies the significance of TP53, U2AF1, ASXL1, and TET2 mutations. Mod Pathol. (2015) 28:706–14. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2014.160, PMID:

73. Hou HA, Chou WC, Kuo YY, Liu CY, Lin LI, Tseng MH, et al. TP53 mutations in de novo acute myeloid leukemia patients: longitudinal follow-ups show the mutation is stable during disease evolution. Blood Cancer J. (2015) 5:e331. doi: 10.1038/bcj.2015.59, PMID:

74. Seifert H, Mohr B, Thiede C, Oelschlägel U, Schäkel U, Illmer T, et al. The prognostic impact of 17p (p53) deletion in 2272 adults with acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. (2009) 23:656–63. doi: 10.1038/leu.2008.375, PMID:

75. Welch JS, Petti AA, Miller CA, Fronick CC, O’Laughlin M, Fulton RS, et al. TP53 and Decitabine in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes. New Engl J Med. (2016) 375:2023–36. doi: 10.1056/NEJMOA1605949, PMID:

76. Daver N, Garcia-Manero G, Basu S, Boddu PC, Alfayez M, Cortes JE, et al. Efficacy, Safety, and Biomarkers of Response to Azacitidine and Nivolumab in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Nonrandomized, Open-Label, Phase II Study. Cancer Discov. (2019) 9:370–83. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-18-0774, PMID:

77. DiNardo CD, Maiti A, Rausch CR, Pemmaraju N, Naqvi K, Daver NG, et al. 10-day decitabine with venetoclax for newly diagnosed intensive chemotherapy ineligible, and relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia: a single-centre, phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol. (2020) 7:e724–36. doi: 10.1016/s2352-3026(20)30210-6, PMID:

78. Uy GL, Aldoss I, Foster MC, Sayre PH, Wieduwilt MJ, Advani AS, et al. Flotetuzumab as salvage immunotherapy for refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. (2021) 137:751–62. doi: 10.1182/BLOOD.2020007732, PMID:

79. Cluzeau T, Sebert M, Rahmé R, Cuzzubbo S, Lehmann-Che J, Madelaine I, et al. Eprenetapopt plus azacitidine in TP53-mutated myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid Leukemia: A phase II study by the groupe francophone des Myélodysplasies (GFM). J Clin Oncol. (2021) 39:1575–83. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.02342/ASSET/A35D8D2F-86F3-4580-B1B1-A607D2385E78/ASSETS/IMAGES/LARGE/JCO.20.02342TA1.JPG

80. Sallman DA, DeZern AE, Garcia-Manero G, Steensma DP, Roboz GJ, Sekeres MA, et al. Eprenetapopt (APR-246) and Azacitidine in TP53-Mutant Myelodysplastic Syndromes. J Clin Oncol. (2021) 39:1584–94. doi: 10.1200/jco.20.02341, PMID:

81. Othman J, Wilhelm-Benartzi C, Dillon R, Knapper S, Freeman SD, Batten LM, et al. A randomized comparison of CPX-351 and FLAG-Ida in adverse karyotype AML and high-risk MDS: the UK NCRI AML19 trial. Blood Adv. (2023) 7:4539–49. doi: 10.1182/BLOODADVANCES.2023010276, PMID:

82. Sallman DA, Al Malki MM, Asch AS, Wang ES, Jurcic JG, Bradley TJ, et al. Magrolimab in Combination With Azacitidine in Patients With Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes: Final Results of a Phase Ib Study. J Clin Oncol. (2023) 41:2815–26. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01794/SUPPL_FILE/PROTOCOL_JCO.22.01794.PDF

83. Garcia-Manero G, Goldberg AD, Winer ES, Altman JK, Fathi AT, Odenike O, et al. Eprenetapopt combined with venetoclax and azacitidine in TP53-mutated acute myeloid leukaemia: a phase 1, dose-finding and expansion study. Lancet Haematol. (2023) 10:e272–83. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(22)00403-3, PMID:

84. Lane AA, Garcia JS, Raulston EG, Garzon JL, Galinsky I, Baxter EW, et al. Phase 1b trial of tagraxofusp in combination with azacitidine with or without venetoclax in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Adv. (2024) 8:591–602. doi: 10.1182/BLOODADVANCES.2023011721, PMID:

85. Zeidan AM, Ando K, Rauzy O, Turgut M, Wang MC, Cairoli R, et al. Sabatolimab plus hypomethylating agents in previously untreated patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (STIMULUS-MDS1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol. (2024) 11:e38–50. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(23)00333-2, PMID:

86. DiNardo CD, Jen WY, Takahashi K, Kadia TM, Loghavi S, Daver NG, et al. Long term results of venetoclax combined with FLAG-IDA induction and consolidation for newly diagnosed and relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia: ACUTE MYELOID LEUKEMIA. Leukemia. (2025) 39:854–63. doi: 10.1038/S41375-025-02531-8, PMID:

87. Sallman DA, Komrokji RS, Dezern AE, Sebert M, Garcia-Manero G, Rahmé R, et al. Long-term follow-up and combined Phase 2 results of eprenetapopt and azacitidine in patients with TP53 mutant MDS/AML. Hemasphere. (2025) 9. doi: 10.1002/HEM3.70164, PMID:

88. Diesch J, Zwick A, Garz AK, Palau A, Buschbeck M, Götze KS. A clinical-molecular update on azanucleoside-based therapy for the treatment of hematologic cancers. Clin Epigenet. (2016) 8. doi: 10.1186/S13148-016-0237-Y, PMID:

89. Fenaux P, Mufti GJ, Hellstrom-Lindberg E, Santini V, Finelli C, Giagounidis A, et al. Efficacy of azacitidine compared with that of conventional care regimens in the treatment of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a randomised, open-label, phase III study. Lancet Oncol. (2009) 10:223–32. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70003-8, PMID:

90. DiNardo CD, Jonas BA, Pullarkat V, Thirman MJ, Garcia JS, Wei AH, et al. Azacitidine and Venetoclax in Previously Untreated Acute Myeloid Leukemia. N Engl J Med. (2020) 383:617–29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2012971, PMID:

91. Kantarjian HM, Thomas XG, Dmoszynska A, Wierzbowska A, Mazur G, Mayer J, et al. Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial of Decitabine Versus Patient Choice, With Physician Advice, of Either Supportive Care or Low-Dose Cytarabine for the Treatment of Older Patients With Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia. J Clin Oncol. (2012) 30:2670. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.9429, PMID:

92. Malik P, Cashen AF. Decitabine in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia in elderly patients. Cancer Manag Res. (2014) 6:53–61. doi: 10.2147/cmar.S40600, PMID:

93. Short NJ, Kantarjian HM, Loghavi S, Huang X, Qiao W, Borthakur G, et al. Treatment with a 5-day versus a 10-day schedule of decitabine in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia: a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol. (2019) 6:e29–37. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(18)30182-0, PMID:

94. Hunter AM, Sallman DA. Targeting TP53 Mutations in Myelodysplastic Syndromes. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. (2020) 34:421–40. doi: 10.1016/j.hoc.2019.11.004, PMID:

95. Montalban-Bravo G, Kanagal-Shamanna R, Benton CB, Class CA, Chien KS, Sasaki K, et al. Genomic context and TP53 allele frequency define clinical outcomes in TP53-mutated myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood Adv. (2020) 4:482–95. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019001101, PMID:

96. Pan R, Hogdal LJ, Benito JM, Bucci D, Han L, Borthakur G, et al. Selective BCL-2 inhibition by ABT-199 causes on-target cell death in acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer Discov. (2014) 4:362–75. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-13-0609, PMID:

97. Konopleva M, Contractor R, Tsao T, Samudio I, Ruvolo PP, Kitada S, et al. Mechanisms of apoptosis sensitivity and resistance to the BH3 mimetic ABT-737 in acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer Cell. (2006) 10:375–88. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.006, PMID:

98. Schiffer CA. Promoting Apoptosis with Venetoclax - A Benefit for Older Patients with AML. N Engl J Med. (2020) 383:677–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe2023326, PMID:

99. Anderson MA, Deng J, Seymour JF, Tam C, Kim SY, Fein J, et al. The BCL2 selective inhibitor venetoclax induces rapid onset apoptosis of CLL cells in patients via a TP53-independent mechanism. Blood. (2016) 127:3215–24. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-01-688796, PMID:

100. Kim K, Maiti A, Loghavi S, Pourebrahim R, Kadia TM, Rausch CR, et al. Outcomes of TP53-mutant acute myeloid leukemia with decitabine and venetoclax. Cancer. (2021) 127:3772–81. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33689, PMID:

101. Venugopal S, Shoukier M, Konopleva M, Dinardo CD, Ravandi F, Short NJ, et al. Outcomes in Patients with Newly Diagnosed TP53-Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia with or without Venetoclax-Based Therapy. Cancer. (2021) 127:3541. doi: 10.1002/CNCR.33675, PMID:

102. Mantzaris I, Goldfinger M, Uriel M, Shastri A, Shah N, Gritsman K, et al. Venetoclax plus daunorubicin and cytarabine for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: results of a phase 1b study. Blood. (2025) 145:1870. doi: 10.1182/BLOOD.2024026700, PMID:

103. Lindsley RC, Saber W, Mar BG, Redd R, Wang T, Haagenson MD, et al. Prognostic Mutations in Myelodysplastic Syndrome after Stem-Cell Transplantation. N Engl J Med. (2017) 376:536–47. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611604, PMID:

104. Yoshizato T, Nannya Y, Atsuta Y, Shiozawa Y, Iijima-Yamashita Y, Yoshida K, et al. Genetic abnormalities in myelodysplasia and secondary acute myeloid leukemia: impact on outcome of stem cell transplantation. Blood. (2017) 129:2347–58. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-12-754796, PMID:

105. Della Porta MG, Gallì A, Bacigalupo A, Zibellini S, Bernardi M, Rizzo E, et al. Clinical Effects of Driver Somatic Mutations on the Outcomes of Patients With Myelodysplastic Syndromes Treated With Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation. J Clin Oncol. (2016) 34:3627–37. doi: 10.1200/jco.2016.67.3616, PMID:

106. Lontos K, Saliba RM, Kanagal-Shamanna R, Özcan G, Ramdial J, Chen G, et al. TP53-mutant variant allele frequency and cytogenetics determine prognostic groups in MDS/AML for transplantation. Blood Adv. (2025) 9:2845. doi: 10.1182/BLOODADVANCES.2024014499, PMID:

107. Hourigan CS, Dillon LW, Gui G, Logan BR, Fei M, Ghannam J, et al. Impact of Conditioning Intensity of Allogeneic Transplantation for Acute Myeloid Leukemia With Genomic Evidence of Residual Disease. J Clin Oncol. (2020) 38:1273–83. doi: 10.1200/jco.19.03011, PMID:

108. Murdock HM, Kim HT, Denlinger N, Vachhani P, Hambley B, Manning BS, et al. Impact of diagnostic genetics on remission MRD and transplantation outcomes in older patients with AML. Blood. (2022) 139:3546–57. doi: 10.1182/blood.2021014520, PMID:

109. Versluis J, Lindsley RC. Transplant for TP53-mutated MDS and AML: because we can or because we should? Hematol Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. (2022) 2022:522–7. doi: 10.1182/hematology.2022000354, PMID:

110. Mina A, Greenberg PL, Deeg HJ. How I reduce and treat posttransplant relapse of MDS. Blood. (2024) 143:1344–54. doi: 10.1182/BLOOD.2023023005, PMID:

111. Robin M, Porcher R, Adès L, Raffoux E, Michallet M, François S, et al. HLA-matched allogeneic stem cell transplantation improves outcome of higher risk myelodysplastic syndrome A prospective study on behalf of SFGM-TC and GFM. Leukemia. (2015) 29:1496–501. doi: 10.1038/LEU.2015.37;SUBJMETA, PMID:

112. Zhang Q, Yi DY, Xue BZ, Wen WW, Lu YP, Abdelmaksou A, et al. CD90 determined two subpopulations of glioma-associated mesenchymal stem cells with different roles in tumour progression. Cell Death Dis. (2018) 9:1101. doi: 10.1038/s41419-018-1140-6, PMID:

113. Bykov VJ, Issaeva N, Shilov A, Hultcrantz M, Pugacheva E, Chumakov P, et al. Restoration of the tumor suppressor function to mutant p53 by a low-molecular-weight compound. Nat Med. (2002) 8:282–8. doi: 10.1038/nm0302-282, PMID:

114. Duffy MJ, Synnott NC, O’Grady S, Crown J. Targeting p53 for the treatment of cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. (2022) 79:58–67. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.07.005, PMID:

115. Salim KY, Maleki Vareki S, Danter WR, Koropatnick J. COTI-2, a new anticancer drug currently under clinical investigation, targets mutant p53 and negatively modulates the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. Eur J Cancer. (2016) 69:S19. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(16)32638-7, PMID: 41815951

116. Manke IA, Nguyen A, Lim D, Stewart MQ, Elia AE, Yaffe MB. MAPKAP kinase-2 is a cell cycle checkpoint kinase that regulates the G2/M transition and S phase progression in response to UV irradiation. Mol Cell. (2005) 17:37–48. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2004.11.021, PMID:

117. Koniaras K, Cuddihy AR, Christopoulos H, Hogg A, O’Connell MJ. Inhibition of Chk1-dependent G2 DNA damage checkpoint radiosensitizes p53 mutant human cells. Oncogene. (2001) 20:7453–63. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1204942, PMID:

118. Kawabe T. G2 checkpoint abrogators as anticancer drugs. Mol Cancer Ther. (2004) 3:513–9. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.513.3.4, PMID:

119. Yan W, Liu S, Xu E, Zhang J, Zhang Y, Chen X, et al. Histone deacetylase inhibitors suppress mutant p53 transcription via histone deacetylase 8. Oncogene. (2012) 32:599. doi: 10.1038/ONC.2012.81, PMID:

120. Li D, Marchenko ND, Moll UM. SAHA shows preferential cytotoxicity in mutant p53 cancer cells by destabilizing mutant p53 through inhibition of the HDAC6-Hsp90 chaperone axis. Cell Death Differ. (2011) 18:1904. doi: 10.1038/CDD.2011.71, PMID:

121. Parrales A, Ranjan A, Iyer SV, Padhye S, Weir SJ, Roy A, et al. DNAJA1 controls the fate of misfolded mutant p53 through the mevalonate pathway. Nat Cell Biol. (2016) 18:1233–43. doi: 10.1038/ncb3427, PMID:

122. Lee JS, Roberts A, Juarez D, Vo TTT, Bhatt S, Herzog LO, et al. Statins enhance efficacy of venetoclax in blood cancers. Sci Transl Med. (2018) 10. doi: 10.1126/SCITRANSLMED.AAQ1240/SUPPL_FILE/AAQ1240_TABLE_S4.ZIP

123. Skuli S, Bakayoko A, Wertheim G, Riley O, Kruidenier M, Manning B, et al. The Mevalonate Pathway Is a Therapeutic Target in TP53 Mutant Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Blood. (2023) 142:408–8. doi: 10.1182/BLOOD-2023-185059, PMID: 41761659

124. José-Enériz ES, Gimenez-Camino N, Agirre X, Prosper F. HDAC Inhibitors in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Cancers. (2019) 11:1794. doi: 10.3390/CANCERS11111794, PMID:

125. Duong VH, Ruppert AS, Mims AS, Borate U, Stein EM, Baer MR, et al. Entospletinib with decitabine in acute myeloid leukemia with mutant TP53 or complex karyotype: A phase 2 substudy of the Beat AML Master Trial. Cancer. (2023) 129:2308–20. doi: 10.1002/CNCR.34780, PMID:

126. Ghimire B, Zimmer M, Donthireddy V. TP53-Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Review of Treatment and Challenges. Eur J Haematol. (2025) 114:924–37. doi: 10.1111/EJH.14404, PMID:

127. Ito K, Nishio M, Fujiwara K, Nishii Y, Ushiro K, Yasui H, et al. Refractory response to entrectinib for ROS-1 rearranged NSCLC with concurrent de novo TP53 mutation showing good response to CNS lesion, but poor duration of response: A case report. Thorac Cancer. (2023) 14:2622–6. doi: 10.1111/1759-7714.15044, PMID:

128. Yan W, Zhang Y, Zhang J, Liu S, Cho SJ, Chen X. Mutant p53 protein is targeted by arsenic for degradation and plays a role in arsenic-mediated growth suppression. J Biol Chem. (2011) 286:17478–86. doi: 10.1074/JBC.M111.231639, PMID:

129. Carter BZ, Mak PY, Muftuoglu M, Tao W, Ke B, Pei J, et al. Epichaperome inhibition targets TP53-mutant AML and AML stem/progenitor cells. Blood. (2023) 142:1056. doi: 10.1182/BLOOD.2022019047, PMID:

130. Teoh PJ, Bi C, Sintosebastian C, Tay LS, Fonseca R, Chng WJ. PRIMA-1 targets the vulnerability of multiple myeloma of deregulated protein homeostasis through the perturbation of ER stress via p73 demethylation. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:61806–19. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.11241, PMID:

131. Birsen R, Larrue C, Decroocq J, Johnson N, Guiraud N, Gotanegre M, et al. APR-246 induces early cell death by ferroptosis in acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica. (2022) 107:403–16. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2020.259531, PMID:

132. Tessoulin B, Descamps G, Moreau P, Maïga S, Lodé L, Godon C, et al. PRIMA-1Met induces myeloma cell death independent of p53 by impairing the GSH/ROS balance. Blood. (2014) 124:1626–36. doi: 10.1182/blood-2014-01-548800, PMID:

133. Peng X, Zhang MQ, Conserva F, Hosny G, Selivanova G, Bykov VJ, et al. APR-246/PRIMA-1MET inhibits thioredoxin reductase 1 and converts the enzyme to a dedicated NADPH oxidase. Cell Death Dis. (2013) 4:e881. doi: 10.1038/cddis.2013.417, PMID:

134. Maslah N, Salomao N, Drevon L, Verger E, Partouche N, Ly P, et al. Synergistic effects of PRIMA-1(Met) (APR-246) and 5-azacitidine in TP53-mutated myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica. (2020) 105:1539–51. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2019.218453, PMID:

135. Mishra A, Tamari R, DeZern AE, Byrne MT, Gooptu M, Chen YB, et al. Eprenetapopt Plus Azacitidine After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation for TP53-Mutant Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes. J Clin Oncol. (2022) 40:3985–93. doi: 10.1200/jco.22.00181, PMID:

136. Lindemann A, Patel AA, Silver NL, Tang L, Liu Z, Wang L, et al. COTI-2, A Novel Thiosemicarbazone Derivative, Exhibits Antitumor Activity in HNSCC through p53-dependent and -independent Mechanisms. Clin Cancer Res. (2019) 25:5650–62. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-19-0096, PMID:

137. Westin SN, Nieves-Neira W, Lynam C, Salim KY, Silva AD, Ho RT, et al. Abstract CT033: Safety and early efficacy signals for COTI-2, an orally available small molecule targeting p53, in a phase I trial of recurrent gynecologic cancer. Cancer Res. (2018) 78:CT033–3. doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2018-CT033, PMID: 41680580

138. Tang X, Zhu Y, Han L, Kim AL, Kopelovich L, Bickers DR, et al. CP-31398 restores mutant p53 tumor suppressor function and inhibits UVB-induced skin carcinogenesis in mice. J Clin Invest. (2007) 117:3753–64. doi: 10.1172/jci32481, PMID:

139. Issaeva N, Bozko P, Enge M, Protopopova M, Verhoef LG, Masucci M, et al. Small molecule RITA binds to p53, blocks p53-HDM-2 interaction and activates p53 function in tumors. Nat Med. (2004) 10:1321–8. doi: 10.1038/nm1146, PMID:

140. Synnott NC, Bauer MR, Madden S, Murray A, Klinger R, O’Donovan N, et al. Mutant p53 as a therapeutic target for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer: Preclinical investigation with the anti-p53 drug, PK11007. Cancer Lett. (2018) 414:99–106. doi: 10.1016/J.CANLET.2017.09.053, PMID:

141. Rath KS, Naidu SK, Lata P, Bid HK, Rivera BK, McCann GA, et al. HO-3867, a safe STAT3 inhibitor, is selectively cytotoxic to ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. (2014) 74:2316–27. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-2433, PMID:

142. Liu X, Wilcken R, Joerger AC, Chuckowree IS, Amin J, Spencer J, et al. Small molecule induced reactivation of mutant p53 in cancer cells. Nucleic Acids Res. (2013) 41:6034–44. doi: 10.1093/NAR/GKT305, PMID:

143. Jaiswal S, Jamieson CH, Pang WW, Park CY, Chao MP, Majeti R, et al. CD47 is upregulated on circulating hematopoietic stem cells and leukemia cells to avoid phagocytosis. Cell. (2009) 138:271–85. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.05.046, PMID:

144. Majeti R, Chao MP, Alizadeh AA, Pang WW, Jaiswal S, Gibbs KD, Jr., et al. CD47 is an adverse prognostic factor and therapeutic antibody target on human acute myeloid leukemia stem cells. Cell. (2009) 138:286–99. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.05.045, PMID:

145. Daver NG, Vyas P, Kambhampati S, Al Malki MM, Larson RA, Asch AS, et al. Tolerability and Efficacy of the Anticluster of Differentiation 47 Antibody Magrolimab Combined with Azacitidine in Patients with Previously Untreated AML: Phase Ib Results. J Clin Oncol. (2023) 41:4893–904. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.02604/SUPPL_FILE/PROTOCOL_JCO.22.02604.PDF

146. ENHANCE . 3 studies document for posting 26. Available online at: https://www.gilead.com/-/media/files/pdfs/other/magrolimab-trials-summary.pdf (Accessed July 10, 2025).

147. Study Details | Magrolimab + Azacitidine Versus Azacitidine + Placebo in Untreated Participants With Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) . ClinicalTrials.gov. Available online at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04313881 (Accessed July 10, 2025).

148. Zeidner JF, Sallman DA, Récher C, Daver NG, Leung AYH, Hiwase DK, et al. Magrolimab plus azacitidine vs physician’s choice for untreated TP53-mutated acute myeloid leukemia: the ENHANCE-2 study. Blood. (2025) 146:590–600. doi: 10.1182/BLOOD.2024027408/535776/MAGROLIMAB-PLUS-AZACITIDINE-VS-PHYSICIAN-S-CHOICE, PMID:

149. Daver N, Vyas P, Huls G, Döhner H, Maury S, Novak J, et al. The ENHANCE-3 study: venetoclax and azacitidine plus magrolimab or placebo for untreated AML unfit for intensive therapy. Blood. (2025) 146:601–11. doi: 10.1182/BLOOD.2024027506/536723/THE-ENHANCE-3-STUDY-VENETOCLAX-AND-AZACITIDINE, PMID:

150. Qu T, Zhong T, Pang X, Huang Z, Jin C, Wang ZM, et al. Ligufalimab, a novel anti-CD47 antibody with no hemagglutination demonstrates both monotherapy and combo antitumor activity. J Immunother Cancer. (2022) 10:5517. doi: 10.1136/JITC-2022-005517, PMID:

151. Miao M, Teng Q, Wu D, Jiang Z, Jiang S, Li F, et al. AK117 (anti-CD47 monoclonal antibody) in Combination with Azacitidine for Newly Diagnosed Higher Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (HR-MDS): AK117–103 Phase 1b Results. Blood. (2023) 142:1865–5. doi: 10.1182/BLOOD-2023-179099, PMID: 41761659

152. Zeidan AM, Tong H, Xiao Z, Baratam P, Abboud R, Benton CB, et al. Trial in Progress: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Phase 2 Study of AK117/Placebo in Combination with Azacitidine in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (AK117-205). Blood. (2024) 144:6705–5. doi: 10.1182/BLOOD-2024-200541, PMID: 41761659

153. Kikushige Y, Miyamoto T, Yuda J, Jabbarzadeh-Tabrizi S, Shima T, Takayanagi S, et al. A TIM-3/Gal-9 Autocrine Stimulatory Loop Drives Self-Renewal of Human Myeloid Leukemia Stem Cells and Leukemic Progression. Cell Stem Cell. (2015) 17:341–52. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2015.07.011, PMID:

154. Das M, Zhu C, Kuchroo VK. Tim-3 and its role in regulating anti-tumor immunity. Immunol Rev. (2017) 276:97–111. doi: 10.1111/imr.12520, PMID:

155. Wolf Y, Anderson AC, Kuchroo VK. TIM3 comes of age as an inhibitory receptor. Nat Rev Immunol. (2020) 20:173–85. doi: 10.1038/s41577-019-0224-6, PMID:

156. Brunner AM, Esteve J, Porkka K, Knapper S, Traer E, Scholl S, et al. Phase Ib study of sabatolimab (MBG453), a novel immunotherapy targeting TIM-3 antibody, in combination with decitabine or azacitidine in high- or very high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Am J Hematol. (2024) 99:E32–e36. doi: 10.1002/ajh.27161, PMID:

157. Zhang L, Gajewski TF, Kline J. PD-1/PD-L1 interactions inhibit antitumor immune responses in a murine acute myeloid leukemia model. Blood. (2009) 114:1545–52. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-03-206672, PMID:

158. El Chaer F, Hourigan CS, Zeidan AM. How I treat AML incorporating the updated classifications and guidelines. Blood. (2023) 141:2813–23. doi: 10.1182/blood.2022017808, PMID:

159. Williams P, Basu S, Garcia-Manero G, Hourigan CS, Oetjen KA, Cortes JE, et al. The distribution of T-cell subsets and the expression of immune checkpoint receptors and ligands in patients with newly diagnosed and relapsed acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer. (2019) 125:1470–81. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31896, PMID:

160. Sallman DA, McLemore AF, Aldrich AL, Komrokji RS, McGraw KL, Dhawan A, et al. TP53 mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes and secondary AML confer an immunosuppressive phenotype. Blood. (2020) 136:2812–23. doi: 10.1182/blood.2020006158, PMID:

161. Yang H, Bueso-Ramos C, DiNardo C, Estecio MR, Davanlou M, Geng QR, et al. Expression of PD-L1, PD-L2, PD-1 and CTLA4 in myelodysplastic syndromes is enhanced by treatment with hypomethylating agents. Leukemia. (2014) 28:1280–8. doi: 10.1038/leu.2013.355, PMID:

162. Zeidan AM, Boss I, Beach CL, Copeland WB, Thompson E, Fox BA, et al. A randomized phase 2 trial of azacitidine with or without durvalumab as first-line therapy for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood Adv. (2022) 6:2207–18. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005487, PMID:

163. Daver NG, Garcia-Manero G, Konopleva MY, Alfayez M, Pemmaraju N, Kadia TM, et al. Azacitidine (AZA) with Nivolumab (Nivo), and AZA with Nivo + Ipilimumab (Ipi) in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Non-Randomized, Prospective, Phase 2 Study. Blood. (2019) 134:830. doi: 10.1182/blood-2019-131494, PMID: 41761659

164. Mueller J, Schimmer RR, Koch C, Schneiter F, Fullin J, Lysenko V, et al. Targeting the mevalonate or Wnt pathways to overcome CAR T-cell resistance in TP53-mutant AML cells. EMBO Mol Med. (2024) 16:445–74. doi: 10.1038/s44321-024-00024-2, PMID:

165. Berdeja JG, Madduri D, Usmani SZ, Jakubowiak A, Agha M, Cohen AD, et al. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel, a B-cell maturation antigen-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CARTITUDE-1): a phase 1b/2 open-label study. Lancet. (2021) 398:314–24. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00933-8, PMID:

166. Kochenderfer JN, Dudley ME, Kassim SH, Somerville RP, Carpenter RO, Stetler-Stevenson M, et al. Chemotherapy-refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and indolent B-cell malignancies can be effectively treated with autologous T cells expressing an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor. J Clin Oncol. (2015) 33:540–9. doi: 10.1200/jco.2014.56.2025, PMID:

167. Lee DW, Kochenderfer JN, Stetler-Stevenson M, Cui YK, Delbrook C, Feldman SA, et al. T cells expressing CD19 chimeric antigen receptors for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in children and young adults: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet. (2015) 385:517–28. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61403-3, PMID:

168. Maude SL, Frey N, Shaw PA, Aplenc R, Barrett DM, Bunin NJ, et al. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells for sustained remissions in leukemia. N Engl J Med. (2014) 371:1507–17. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1407222, PMID:

169. Neelapu SS, Locke FL, Bartlett NL, Lekakis LJ, Miklos DB, Jacobson CA, et al. Axicabtagene Ciloleucel CAR T-Cell Therapy in Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma. N Engl J Med. (2017) 377:2531–44. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1707447, PMID:

170. Schuster SJ, Bishop MR, Tam CS, Waller EK, Borchmann P, McGuirk JP, et al. Tisagenlecleucel in Adult Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma. N Engl J Med. (2019) 380:45–56. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804980, PMID:

171. Turtle CJ, Hanafi LA, Berger C, Gooley TA, Cherian S, Hudecek M, et al. CD19 CAR-T cells of defined CD4+:CD8+ composition in adult B cell ALL patients. J Clin Invest. (2016) 126:2123–38. doi: 10.1172/jci85309, PMID:

172. Thiery J, Safta TB, Ziani L, Chouaib S. Mechanisms of Cytotoxic Lymphocyte-Mediated Apoptosis and Relationship with the Tumor Suppressor p53. Crit Rev Immunol. (2015) 35:433–49. doi: 10.1615/CritRevImmunol.2016015691, PMID:

173. Thiery J, Abouzahr S, Dorothee G, Jalil A, Richon C, Vergnon I, et al. p53 potentiation of tumor cell susceptibility to CTL involves Fas and mitochondrial pathways. J Immunol. (2005) 174:871–8. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.174.2.871, PMID:

174. Chollat-Namy M, Ben Safta-Saadoun T, Haferssas D, Meurice G, Chouaib S, Thiery J. The pharmalogical reactivation of p53 function improves breast tumor cell lysis by granzyme B and NK cells through induction of autophagy. Cell Death Dis. (2019) 10:695. doi: 10.1038/s41419-019-1950-1, PMID:

175. Ben Safta T, Ziani L, Favre L, Lamendour L, Gros G, Mami-Chouaib F, et al. Granzyme B-activated p53 interacts with Bcl-2 to promote cytotoxic lymphocyte-mediated apoptosis. J Immunol. (2015) 194:418–28. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1401978, PMID:

176. Chasov V, Zmievskaya E, Ganeeva I, Gilyazova E, Davletshin D, Filimonova M, et al. Systemic lupus erythematosus therapeutic strategy: From immunotherapy to gut microbiota modulation. J BioMed Res. (2024) 38:1–16. doi: 10.7555/jbr.38.20240009, PMID:

177. Joerger AC, Fersht AR. Structural biology of the tumor suppressor p53. Annu Rev Biochem. (2008) 77:557–82. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.77.060806.091238, PMID:

178. Petitjean A, Mathe E, Kato S, Ishioka C, Tavtigian SV, Hainaut P, et al. Impact of mutant p53 functional properties on TP53 mutation patterns and tumor phenotype: lessons from recent developments in the IARC TP53 database. Hum Mutat. (2007) 28:622–9. doi: 10.1002/humu.20495, PMID:

179. Dumbrava EE, Johnson ML, Tolcher AW, Shapiro G, Thompson JA, El-Khoueiry AB, et al. First-in-human study of PC14586, a small molecule structural corrector of Y220C mutant p53, in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a TP53 Y220C mutation. J Clin Oncol. (2024) 40:3003. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.3003, PMID: 40980460

180. Zhang TD, Chen GQ, Wang ZG, Wang ZY, Chen SJ, Chen Z. Arsenic trioxide, a therapeutic agent for APL. Oncogene. (2001) 20:7146–53. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1204762, PMID:

181. Chen S, Le W, Liang Y, Tang YG, Song HX, Wu LL, et al. Arsenic Trioxide Rescues Structural p53 Mutations through a Cryptic Allosteric Site. Cancer Cell. (2021) 39:225–239.e8. doi: 10.1016/J.CCELL.2020.11.013/ATTACHMENT/2E4E03B2-67AC-4094-B3C6-B76BB0A78502/MMC6.PDF

182. Zhu G, Fu W, Xu L, Zhang Y, Hu J, Hou J, et al. Arsenic Trioxide Combine with G-CSF Triggers Distinct TP53 Mutations Acute Myeloid Leukemia Cells Ferroptosis through TP53-SLC7A11-GPX4 Pathway. Blood. (2023) 142:5989. doi: 10.1182/BLOOD-2023-180676, PMID: 41761659

183. Vadakekolathu J, Lai C, Reeder S, Church SE, Hood T, Lourdusamy A, et al. TP53 abnormalities correlate with immune infiltration and associate with response to flotetuzumab immunotherapy in AML. Blood Adv. (2020) 4:5011–24. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002512, PMID:

184. Rimando JC, Chendamarai E, Rettig MP, Jayasinghe R, Christopher MJ, Ritchey JK, et al. Flotetuzumab and other T-cell immunotherapies upregulate MHC class II expression on acute myeloid leukemia cells. Blood. (2023) 141:1718–23. doi: 10.1182/blood.2022017795, PMID:

185. Uy GL. Turning AML targets inside out. Blood. (2021) 138:2598–9. doi: 10.1182/blood.2021013241, PMID:

186. Minetto P, Rosellini S, Guolo F, Tedone E, Audisio E, Cattaneo C, et al. Single Agent Tagraxofusp in Relapsed/Refractory CD123-Positive Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Preliminary Analysis of Italian Gimema AML2020 Trial. Blood. (2023) 142:2918–8. doi: 10.1182/BLOOD-2023-189417, PMID: 41761659

187. Hsiue EHC, Wright KM, Douglass J, Hwang MS, Mog BJ, Pearlman AH, et al. Targeting a neoantigen derived from a common TP53 mutation. Science. (2021) 371. doi: 10.1126/SCIENCE.ABC8697, PMID: