Oncofusion

start / graph / absence-nup98-response-rate-in-menin-inhibitor-trials

Trialstrong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.Qn-nup98-family

Counted absence: no menin-inhibitor trial has ever reported a response RATE in NUP98-rearranged patients

also called NUP98 menin inhibitor response rate gap · AUGMENT-101 cohort 2D unreported · cAMeLot-1 NUP98 dropped

Three big trials of menin-blocking drugs deliberately let in patients whose leukaemia is driven by a NUP98 fusion, and one of them has a cohort built exactly for them. None has ever published how often those patients responded, and neither approved drug's label mentions NUP98 at all.

The same thing, for a scientist

As of 2026-09-19 the clinical evidence base for menin inhibition in NUP98-rearranged leukaemia consists of **one prospective subgroup durability figure** (SAVE, median CR/CRh 5.9 months in ~9 NUP98r patients; see `trial-save-revumenib-nup98-subgroup`), **one published single-patient complete remission** (icovamenib; `pt-story-nup98-nsd1-icovamenib-complete-remission`), and **one case letter**. No response *rate* has ever been reported for a NUP98-altered cohort of any menin inhibitor. This is not a literature-search artefact; it is checkable at the registry. AUGMENT-101 (NCT04065399) has admitted NUP98-rearranged patients since inception and carries a **dedicated Cohort 2D** for HOX/MEIS-upregulating genotypes explicitly naming NUP98r — and posts no results at all [E1]. cAMeLot-1 (NCT04811560) admitted NUP98 **and** NUP214 alterations in phase 1 and then **narrowed phase 2 to KMT2A-r and NPM1m only** [E2]. KOMET-001 (NCT04067336) never mentions NUP98 or NUP214 anywhere in its record — the string count is zero [E3]. Neither the revumenib nor the ziftomenib US label contains the string NUP98 [E4][E5]. The first trial dedicated exclusively to NUP98-rearranged leukaemia, TACL T2023-004 (NCT07686107), is **NOT_YET_RECRUITING** with an estimated enrolment of 24 [E6].

Go deeper
The registry evidence, with counts

All four records were fetched from the raw ClinicalTrials.gov v2 API in this session (https://clinicaltrials.gov/api/v2/studies/<NCT>), not through the MCP tool, so whyStopped and hasResults were readable.

NCTacronymstatusenrolmenthasResultswhyStopped"NUP98" occurrences in the whole record"NUP214"
NCT04065399AUGMENT-101RECRUITING447 est.falsenull40
NCT04067336(null; orgId KO-MEN-001)ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING263 est.falsenull00
NCT04811560cAMeLot-1RECRUITING420 est.falsenull11
NCT07686107(null; orgId T2023-004)NOT_YET_RECRUITING24 est.falsenull50

hasResults is false and no resultsSection is present for any of the four, so no NUP98 subgroup result can exist on the registry for any of them. No whyStopped string exists on any record, so no closure reason is being hidden from the literature here — the reason none of these has reported NUP98 data is simply that none has reported. 1236

Verbatim eligibility text

AUGMENT-101 (NCT04065399), general inclusion:

"...or acute leukemia harboring KMT2A rearrangement, NUP98 rearrangement, or NPM1 mutation that have detectable disease in the bone marrow."

and the cohort built for it:

"Cohort 2D: Documented R/R acute leukemia with a genetic mutation expected to lead to HOX/MEIS upregulation (for example, KMT2Ar, NPM1m, and NUP98r), including participants who are MRD-positive by multiparametric flow cytometry or molecular methods only, and including participants with isolated extramedullary disease."

cAMeLot-1 (NCT04811560), note the phase 1 → phase 2 narrowing:

"Phase 1: ... Acute leukemia harboring histone-lysine N-methyltransferase 2A (KMT2A), nucleophosmin 1 gene (NPM1) or nucleoporin 98 gene or nucleoporin 214 gene (NUP98 or NUP214) alterations"

"Phase: 2 ... AML harboring KMT2A-r (gene rearrangement/translocation) or NPM1 mutations only"

KOMET-001 (NCT04067336): there is nothing to quote. The strings NUP98 and NUP214 do not occur.

TACL T2023-004 (NCT07686107):

"Patients must have NUP98-r AML (according to WHO Classification of Hematolymphoid Tumors (5th Edition)) that is either refractory to or is in first relapse following initial therapy." "Patients must be > 1 year and < 22 years of age at time of enrollment."

A registry identification trap worth recording

NCT04067336's acronym field is null and its orgStudyIdInfo.id is "KO-MEN-001", not "KOMET-001". The registry record alone therefore does not confirm that this NCT is KOMET-001. The identification comes from the publication instead: the Lancet Oncology phase 1 report is titled "...(KOMET-001)..." and registers itself as NCT04067336 3. An agent matching trials to publications by acronym field would have failed here.

Separately, a published review calls this study "the phase I/II COMET-001 trial". That spelling is wrong and should not be propagated; it is recorded here without citation because the point is the name, not the review's other contents.

The literature-side counted absence, with the exact queries

PubMed counts, run in this beat's research pass. Short or word-like terms were title-checked before counting, per the project's alias-precision rule.

queryrecords
"revumenib"[tiab]103
"SNDX-5613"[tiab]18
"ziftomenib"[tiab]46
"KO-539"[tiab]9
"bleximenib"[tiab]19
"JNJ-75276617"[tiab]5
"enzomenib"[tiab] OR "DSP-5336"[tiab]14
menin inhibitor[tiab] AND NUP987
NUP98 AND (menin OR MEN1)31
"NUP98"[tiab] AND (revumenib OR ziftomenib OR bleximenib OR "SNDX-5613" OR "KO-539")9
AUGMENT-101 OR "AUGMENT 101"7
KOMET-001 OR "KOMET 001"3
NUP214 AND (menin OR revumenib OR ziftomenib OR bleximenib)1

Of the 31 hits for NUP98 AND (menin OR MEN1), each was title-checked: exactly three touch clinical response in NUP98 patients — the SAVE trial, the icovamenib single-patient report, and a paediatric case letter. The rest are preclinical, reviews, or false positives (one 2010 LEDGF/p75 chromatin paper matched on "MEN1" alone). The nine hits of the drug-name query contain zero primary clinical trial reports of a NUP98 cohort other than SAVE.

What this count does not cover, stated so it is not mistaken for coverage: Europe PMC queries (NUP98 AND revumenib 132 hits; NUP98 AND ziftomenib 84; NUP98 AND bleximenib 40) returned no ASH or EHA meeting abstracts — the conference-abstract layer was not indexed by any query run. That is the single most likely place for an unpublished NUP98 response rate to exist, and this absence claim is explicitly not a claim about it.

The labels

REVUFORJ (revumenib) 4:

"REVUFORJ is a menin inhibitor indicated for: the treatment of relapsed or refractory acute leukemia with a lysine methyltransferase 2A gene (KMT2A) translocation as determined by an FDA-authorized test in adult and pediatric patients 1 year and older. ... the treatment of relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with a susceptible nucleophosmin 1 (NPM1) mutation in adult and pediatric patients 1 year and older who have no satisfactory alternative treatment options."

KOMZIFTI (ziftomenib) 5:

"KOMZIFTI is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with a susceptible nucleophosmin 1 (NPM1) mutation who have no satisfactory alternative treatment options."

A programmatic string count over both complete label JSON documents returns NUP98 = 0 and NUP214 = 0. The practical consequence for a clinician is direct: prescribing a menin inhibitor for a NUP98-rearranged child is off-label under both labels, and the on-label KMT2A indication requires an FDA-authorized test for a KMT2A translocation, which a NUP98-rearranged patient does not have.

Why the absence is itself informative

AUGMENT-101 wrote NUP98 into its eligibility in 2019 and has been recruiting for nearly seven years. Cohort 2D exists specifically for the HOX/MEIS genotypes. Bleximenib admitted NUP98 and NUP214 in phase 1 and then dropped them from phase 2. Two readings compete and this entry does not adjudicate between them:

  • Accrual. NUP98 rearrangements are rare and skew paediatric; adult-weighted registrational cohorts may simply never have accumulated enough patients to report.
  • Signal. A sponsor that saw a convincing NUP98 response rate in cohort 2D would plausibly have reported it, and bleximenib's phase 2 narrowing is at least consistent with a phase 1 NUP98 signal that did not justify carrying the genotype forward.

The discriminating observation would be an accrual number for AUGMENT-101 cohort 2D, which is not posted. The reopening condition is simple: if cohort 2D reports, or if the bleximenib phase 1 NUP98/NUP214 subgroup is published, this entry must be rewritten.

Facts and figures
claim typecounted and title-checked absence
assertionNo menin-inhibitor clinical study has reported a response RATE in a NUP98-altered cohort.
as of2026-09-19
all four hasResultsfalse
nup98 string count revumenib label0
nup98 string count ziftomenib label0
not covered by this absence claimASH and EHA meeting abstracts; Europe PMC returned none for NUP98 with any menin inhibitor name, so that layer is unsearched rather than empty.
reopening conditionPublication or posting of AUGMENT-101 Cohort 2D, or of the cAMeLot-1 phase 1 NUP98/NUP214 subgroup, or opening and reporting of NCT07686107.
absence classmeasured-not-reported
absence class basisThe trials enrolled and assessed these patients; the subgroup response rate was not published. No public deposition exists for trial-level data, so no accession can be named.
absence class assigned2026-09-21 (cycle 47, king)
nup98 string count by record
NCT040673360.000NCT04067336: 0NCT048115601.000NCT04811560: 1NCT040653994.000NCT04065399: 4NCT076861075.000NCT07686107: 5
nup214 string count by record
NCT040653990.000NCT04065399: 0NCT040673360.000NCT04067336: 0NCT076861070.000NCT07686107: 0NCT048115601.000NCT04811560: 1
registry records checked
[
  "NCT04065399",
  "NCT04067336",
  "NCT04811560",
  "NCT07686107"
]
nup98 string count by record — the numbers behind the chart
{
  "NCT04065399": 4,
  "NCT04067336": 0,
  "NCT04811560": 1,
  "NCT07686107": 5
}
nup214 string count by record — the numbers behind the chart
{
  "NCT04065399": 0,
  "NCT04067336": 0,
  "NCT04811560": 1,
  "NCT07686107": 0
}
what does exist
[
  "SAVE: median CR/CRh duration 5.9 months in ~9 NUP98r patients (duration only, no rate)",
  "icovamenib/BMF-219: one patient, complete remission, MRD-negative, progression at cycle 7",
  "one paediatric case letter (NUP98::NSD1)"
]
How this could bite us back
  • Treating this absence as permission to use a menin inhibitor off-label in NUP98-rearranged children inverts it: the absence means nobody knows the response rate, not that it is good.
  • If the absence is a signal rather than an accrual problem, a NUP98-dedicated trial opening now inherits a population that three sponsors have already declined to carry into registration, and a negative result would arrive after years of off-label use has already accumulated.
  • The label's requirement for an FDA-authorized KMT2A translocation test means the diagnostic pathway, not just the indication, excludes NUP98 patients; a NUP98 indication would need a companion diagnostic that does not currently exist.
  • Both approved labels are silent on NUP98, so insurance denial is a live and non-scientific failure mode for exactly the patients this beat argues should be treated.
Still open
  1. How many NUP98-rearranged patients has AUGMENT-101 Cohort 2D actually accrued in seven years of recruiting? Cohort-level accrual is not posted and would distinguish 'too few patients' from 'a signal not worth reporting'.
  2. Was bleximenib's phase 2 narrowing to KMT2A-r/NPM1m driven by a phase 1 NUP98/NUP214 result, or by regulatory strategy? The registry gives no reason and there is no whyStopped field because nothing was stopped.
  3. Do ASH/EHA abstracts contain NUP98 menin-inhibitor response data that no indexed search run here would surface? This is the single biggest hole in this absence claim and a manual abstract-archive search would close it.
  4. Would an FDA-authorized KMT2A translocation test even be run on a NUP98-rearranged patient, and if not, does the label's diagnostic requirement create a practical barrier independent of the indication wording?
Every source behind this entry (6)
  1. E1established confidence 5 of 5: Multiple independent lines of evidence; treated as settled in the field.trial_registry

    AUGMENT-101 (NCT04065399) explicitly admits NUP98-rearranged acute leukaemia and carries a dedicated Cohort 2D for HOX/MEIS-upregulating genotypes naming NUP98r, yet posts no results (hasResults false, no resultsSection, no whyStopped).

    What this evidence cannot show

    A registry record reflects what the sponsor has posted, not what the sponsor knows. Absence of a posted result is not evidence that the cohort produced no data, and cohort-level accrual is not posted, so the number of NUP98r patients actually enrolled is unknown.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • The same drug's NUP98-relevant data may already exist in conference abstracts that were not retrievable by any query run for this entry. Europe PMC returned no ASH or EHA meeting abstracts for NUP98 plus any menin inhibitor name, so the abstract layer is an acknowledged blind spot rather than a checked absence. EMBL-EBI 2026
  2. E2established confidence 5 of 5: Multiple independent lines of evidence; treated as settled in the field.trial_registry

    cAMeLot-1 (NCT04811560) admitted NUP98 or NUP214 alterations in phase 1 but restricts phase 2 to KMT2A-rearranged or NPM1-mutant AML only, and posts no results.

    A Phase 1/2, First-in-Human Study of the Menin-KMT2A (MLL1) Inhibitor Bleximenib in Participants With Acute Leukemia (cAMeLot-1) · Janssen Research & Development, LLC (sponsor) · ClinicalTrials.gov, record last update posted 2026-08-28 2026
    What this evidence cannot show

    The phase 1 to phase 2 narrowing is read off the current eligibility text; the registry does not state a reason for it, and no whyStopped field applies because the study is recruiting, not stopped. A phase 2 population can be narrowed for regulatory-strategy reasons that have nothing to do with observed efficacy.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • Reading the phase 2 narrowing as a negative NUP98 signal is an inference the registry does not license. Registrational phase 2 cohorts are routinely restricted to the genotypes with an approved or approvable comparator path, and both approved menin inhibitors are labelled for KMT2A and/or NPM1 only, which supplies a complete alternative explanation. Syndax Pharmaceuticals 2026
  3. E3established confidence 5 of 5: Multiple independent lines of evidence; treated as settled in the field.paper

    KOMET-001 (NCT04067336) contains zero occurrences of NUP98 or NUP214 in its entire registry record and posts no results; its identity as KOMET-001 is established by the publication, not the registry, because the acronym field is null and the org study id is KO-MEN-001.

    What this evidence cannot show

    The zero string count is over the protocol section as served by the v2 API on 2026-09-19; a protocol amendment could add the genotype at any time. The publication establishes the NCT-to-acronym mapping but does not itself address NUP98.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • Ziftomenib's absence of NUP98 eligibility is a design choice by one sponsor and says nothing about whether NUP98-rearranged leukaemia is menin-dependent. The preclinical dependency evidence is drug-agnostic and was generated with a different tool compound. Heikamp EB et al. 2022
  4. E4established confidence 5 of 5: Multiple independent lines of evidence; treated as settled in the field.database

    The US prescribing information for revumenib (REVUFORJ) is indicated for KMT2A-translocated relapsed/refractory acute leukaemia and for NPM1-mutant relapsed/refractory AML, and contains no occurrence of NUP98.

    REVUFORJ (revumenib) US prescribing information, indications and usage · Syndax Pharmaceuticals · FDA Structured Product Label via openFDA, SPL id 76183831-b710-4be2-a6a7-9349dd501830, effective 2026-02-04 2026
    What this evidence cannot show

    A label reflects what the sponsor sought and the FDA granted, not the boundary of biological activity. Labels are amended; this is the version effective 2026-02-04.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • Absence from a label is a regulatory fact, not a biological one, and off-label menin inhibitor use in NUP98-rearranged disease is already documented in a paediatric case letter, so clinical practice has moved ahead of the label. Liu N et al. 2026
  5. E5established confidence 5 of 5: Multiple independent lines of evidence; treated as settled in the field.database

    The US prescribing information for ziftomenib (KOMZIFTI) is indicated only for adults with NPM1-mutant relapsed/refractory AML and contains no occurrence of NUP98.

    KOMZIFTI (ziftomenib) US prescribing information, indications and usage · Kura Oncology · FDA Structured Product Label via openFDA, SPL id 3213879b-dd88-413b-9910-8fd422c99805, effective 2025-12-09 2025
    What this evidence cannot show

    Adults only and NPM1 only; the label therefore also excludes the paediatric KMT2A population, so its silence on NUP98 is part of a generally narrow indication rather than a NUP98-specific judgement.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • Ziftomenib's registrational programme never enrolled NUP98 patients at all, so the label's silence carries no information about NUP98 response and should not be cited as negative evidence. Wang ES et al. 2025
  6. E6established confidence 5 of 5: Multiple independent lines of evidence; treated as settled in the field.trial_registry

    The first trial dedicated exclusively to NUP98-rearranged leukaemia, TACL T2023-004 (NCT07686107), combining revumenib with FLA chemotherapy in patients >1 and <22 years, was NOT_YET_RECRUITING with an estimated enrolment of 24 as of 2026-09-19.

    T2023-004 Phase 2 Trial of Revumenib (SNDX-5613) in Combination With FLA Chemotherapy for Children With Relapsed or Refractory NUP98-rearranged Acute Myeloid Leukemia · Therapeutic Advances in Childhood Leukemia Consortium (sponsor) · ClinicalTrials.gov, record last update posted 2026-07-22 2026
    What this evidence cannot show

    Not-yet-recruiting studies are sometimes never opened. An estimated enrolment of 24 in a single-arm design will not produce a precise response rate even if it completes, and the combination with FLA chemotherapy means it will not isolate the menin-inhibitor contribution any more cleanly than SAVE did.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • Other trials are now also opening with NUP98 in eligibility alongside KMT2A and NPM1 (for example NCT07751991 and NCT07722312), so the NUP98 clinical evidence base may be filled by non-dedicated studies before the dedicated one opens. Those records were identified in a registry search and their contents were not read in detail here. ClinicalTrials.gov 2026
Connected to