Outcomes of therapy-related AML (T-AML) with venetoclax-based therapies.
Abstract
6549 Background: T-AML refers to AML in patients (pts) with prior exposure to cytotoxic chemotherapy (CT) and/or radiotherapy (RT) and is often associated with adverse risk (AR) genomics. Evaluation of outcomes of T-AML with respect to type of prior therapy exposure, AML genomics, and contemporary AML therapy, especially with venetoclax (VEN), is warranted. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed pts aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed T-AML. Pts with an antecedent myeloid disorder (MDS/CMML) prior to AML diagnosis were excluded; thus, including only pure T-AML. Composite complete response (CRc) included CR and CRi and overall response (OR) included CRc + morphologic leukemia free state. Results: From 1/2012 to 12/2023, 317 pts were included; median (med) age was 69 years (range 21-92). Overall, 120 (38%) received prior CT alone, 77 (24%) received prior RT alone (RT), and 114 (36%) received both (CRT). The most common prior malignancy was non-Hodgkin lymphoma (37%) in the CT group, prostate cancer (60%) in the RT group, and breast cancer (45%) in the CRT group.Among 286 pts with complete cytogenetic data, 180 (63%) were adverse, of whom 132 (46%) had complex karyotype (CK; 42% of CT, 48% of RT, and 61% of CRT groups). TP53 was mutated in 113/286 patients (40%) tested (36% of CT, 35% of RT, and 47% of CRT groups). Stratified by type of CT received, CK and TP53 mutation were seen in 5/5 (100%) and 3/5 (60%) of PARP inhibitor-exposed, 98/184 (53%) and 78/183 (43%) of alkylator-exposed, and 21/36 (58%) and 16/37 (43%) of topoisomerase inhibitor-exposed. Overall, 217/304 (71%) were ELN 2017 AR. In total, 251 pts (79%) received low-intensity AML therapy (LIT). CRc and OR was achieved in 122 (49%) and 146 (58%) pts treated with LIT (vs 58% and 65% with LIT+VEN). In pts treated with intensive chemotherapy (IC), the CRc and OR rate was 64% and 68% (vs 68% and 73% with IC+VEN). Overall, med RFS was 7.2 months (mos; 95% CI 5.6-8.9), and med OS was 11.8 mos (10.0-13.7). Med OS was 5.7 vs 9.0 mos (p=0.02) with LIT and LIT+VEN, respectively (resp), and med OS was 10.9 vs 48.9 mos (p=0.03) for IC vs IC+VEN, resp. Among pts treated with LIT+VEN, med OS was 14.0, 12.4, and 9.6 mos in those who had received prior CT, RT and CRT, resp; when stratified by ELN 2017 criteria, med OS was 24.6, 9.4 and 4.8 mos in the favorable, intermediate and AR groups, resp. Sixty-seven (21%) pts underwent HSCT with a landmarked comparison showing improved OS with HSCT (28.5 months vs 9.4, p<0.001). On multivariate Cox analysis in the LIT+VEN group, with forward model selection, using variables age </≥ 60, adverse cytogenetics, ASXL1, IDH1/2, FLT3-ITD, RAS, RUNX1, TP53 status , HSCT, and prior therapy group, HSCT was favorable (HR=0.19, 95% CI 0.01-0.37), along with IDH2 and NPM1 mut, while RAS and TP53 mut was associated with higher hazards of death. Other factors were not significant. Conclusions: Venetoclax improves outcomes in T-AML. In LIT+VEN treated patients, ELN 2024 risk stratification is prognostic.
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Jennifer Croden
1University of Alberta, Hematology, Edmonton, Canada
Courtney Denton DiNardo
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Koichi Takahashi
Naval Guastad Daver
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Tapan M. Kadia
Department of Leukemia The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USA
Guillermo Garcia-Manero
Gautam Borthakur
5MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Nicholas James Short
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Elias Jabbour
Department of Leukemia The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USA
Fadi Haddad
Hussein Abbas
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Leukemia, Houston, United States
Patrick Kevin Reville
Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Nuvance Health, Norwalk, CT, Norwalk, CT
Guilin Tang
Sanam Loghavi
Elizabeth J. Shpall
Uday R. Popat
Department of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Richard E. Champlin
13Department of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Farhad Ravandi-Kashani
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Hagop M. Kantarjian
Department of Leukemia The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USA
Jayastu Senapati
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center