CPX-351 versus venetoclax plus hypomethylating agents in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: A comparative analysis of outcomes in 600 patients

Abstract

Abstract Venetoclax (Ven) in combination with hypomethylating agents (HMA) is widely used as frontline treatment in older or unfit patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Liposomal cytarabine and daunorubicin (CPX-351) is FDA-approved for the treatment of secondary AML, including therapy-related (t-AML) and AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MR). The current study aimed to provide a comprehensive comparison between the two treatment strategies to better inform clinical decisions. Methods The current retrospective analysis was performed under an institutional review board approved minimal risk protocol at Mayo Clinic (MN, AZ, FL). AML-MR gene mutations or cytogenetic abnormalities were categorized according to the International Consensus Classification (Arber et al. Blood 2022;140:1200). Treatment response was assessed according to the 2022 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria (Dohner et al. Blood 2022;140:1345). Overall survival (OS) analysis was censored for allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT). Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro (Version 18.0.0). Results A total of 600 patients with newly diagnosed AML (ND-AML) treated with CPX-351 (N-112, 19%), or Ven-HMA (N=488, 81%) were included. AML subtypes included de novo (N=277, 46%), post-myelodysplastic syndrome (post-MDS, N=114,19%), post-myeloproliferative neoplasm (post-MPN, N=70, 12%), post-MDS/MPN (N=36, 6%), t-AML (N=103, 17%) and AML-MR (N=274, 46%). Compared with those treated with Ven-HMA, patients receiving CPX-351 were younger (median age 65 vs 73 years; p<0.01), more likely to be female (50% vs 38%; p=0.02), more frequently diagnosed withsecondaryAML (68% vs 51%; p<0.01), and less likely to have NPM1MUT (5% vs 12%; p=0.02) whereas ELN 2022 cytogenetic risk distribution was similar between the two (adverse risk; 43% vs 40%; p=0.5). Comparison of treatment response and survival Complete response rates with (CR) or without (CRi) count recovery were similar between CPX-351 and Ven-HMA overall (55% vs 60%) as well as specifically in patients with AML-MR (60% vs 63%), adverse karyotype (44% vs 44%), NPM1MUT (100% vs 89%), TP53MUT(32% vs 45%), IDH1MUT (60% vs 76%), IDH2MUT (63% vs 77%), SF3B1MUT(71% vs 45%), and CBLMUT (33% vs 69%) [p>0.05 in all instances]. Compared to those with CPX-351, CR/CRi rates with Ven-HMA were superior in males (60% vs. 45%; p=0.04) and in patients with de novo AML (68% vs. 50%; p=0.03), STAG2MUT (86% vs. 44%; p=0.02), or CEBPAMUT (88% vs. 50%; p=0.03); infectious complications were significantly more frequent with CPX-351 (83% vs 62%, p<0.01). At a median follow-up of 12 months (range; 1-88), 416 (69%) deaths, 179 relapses (44% in CPX-351 and 52% in Ven-HMA responders) and 149 ASCTs (53% in CPX-351 and 18% in Ven-HMA) were documented. OS rates were similar between CPX-351 and Ven-HMA, in general (median 10 vs 13 months), as well as in patients with adverse karyotype, TP53MUT, IDH1MUT, and IDH2MUT (p>0.05 in all instances). By contrast, OS was superior in Ven-HMA-treated patients with post-MDS AML (median 12 vs. 7 months; age-adjusted p=0.02) and in CPX-351-treated patients harboring SF3B1MUT(median not reached vs 14 months; age-adjusted p<0.01). In addition, a borderline-significant OS advantage for CPX-351 was apparent in patients with PTPN11MUT (13.5 vs 8 months; p=0.08). Comparison in ICC defined AML-myelodysplasia-related CR/CRi and OS rates were comparable between patients treated with CPX-351 (N=57) or Ven-HMA (N=217), with response rates of 60% vs 63% (p=0.68) and median OS of 10 vs 14 months (p=0.61), respectively. However, OS was superior with Ven-HMA in patients with post-MDS AML (15 vs 8 months; age-adjusted p=0.02) and with CPX-351 in those with SF3B1MUT (NR vs 14 months; age-adjusted p=0.02). Conclusions: The current study suggests that Ven-HMA was as effective and possibly less toxic than CPX-351 for the treatment of ND-AML, including AML-MR, despite the bias for younger and fitter patients treated with the latter regimen. Observed differences involving patients with SF3B1MUT or post-MDS AML require validation in prospective studies and provide parameters for developing treatment-specific predictive models that will be presented at the meeting.