Real-world patterns of treatment intensity and prognostic model performance in older AML: Insights from the french ALFA-PPP cohort

L Lin-Pierre Zhao C Céline Berthon (29Service d’Hématologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille, Hôpital Claude-Huriez, Lille, France) L Lauren Fenwarth (3Laboratoire d'hématologie, CHU Lille, Lille, France, Lille, France) S Stéphane de Botton T Thomas Cluzeau (15Service d’Hématologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Nice, France) L Laure Farnault (28Service d’Hématologie, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille–Hôpital de la Conception, Marseille, France) S Sylvain Chantepie (10Department of Hematology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen, Caen, France) P Pierre Arnautou (8Service d'hématologie, HIA Percy, Clamart, France, Clamart, France) T Thorsten Braun (Service Hématologie, Hôpital Avicenne, AP-HP, Paris) M Mathieu Leclerc (8Hôpital Henri Mondor, Service d'Hématologie Clinique et de Thérapie Cellulaire, Créteil, France) D Delphine Lebon (10CHU Amiens Picardie, Unité d'Hématologie clinique et Thérapie Cellulaire, Amiens, France) A Ahmad Aljijakli (13Hematology Department, Centre Hospitalier d'Argenteuil, Argenteuil, France) I Isabelle Plantier (32Department of Hematology, Centre Hospitalier Roubaix, Roubaix, France) O Ollivier Legrand (14Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Service d'hématologie clinique et de thérapie cellulaire, Paris, France) J Juliette Lambert (19Department of Hematology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Versailles, Versailles, France) C Christophe Willekens E Emmanuel Raffoux C Claire Bories (5CH LENS, LENS, France) E Emilie Lemasle (17Department of Hematology, Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France) K Kevin-James Wattebled (22Centre Hospitalier Dunkerque, Dunkerque, France, Dunkerque, France) A Ambroise Marcais C Celia Salanoubat (21CH Sud Francilien, Hematology, Corbeil-Essonnes, France) P Pascal Turlure (16Department of Hematology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Limoges, Limoges, France) J Jamilé Frayfer (30Hôpital de Meaux, Departement of Hematology, Meaux, France) B Benjamin Carpentier (9St Vincent-de-Paul, GHICL, LILLE, France) M Madalina Uzunov (11Sorbonne Université, AP-HP, Pitié- Salpêtrière Hospital, Department of Clinical Haematology, Paris, France) R Reda Garidi (13CH Saint Quentin, Saint Quentin, France) I Ioana Vaida (22Service d’Hématologie, Hôpital René-Dubos (Nord-Ouest Val-d'Oise), Pontoise, France) R Renaud Buffet (14ALFA, Paris, France) A Alexandra COELHO (13Centre HAYEM - IRSL, Paris, France) K Karine Celli-Lebras (23Acute Leukemia French Intergroup Coordination, Paris, France) R Raphaël Itzykson (6Department of Hematology, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France) C Claude Preudhomme (Unité Mixte de Recherche (UMR) 9020-UMR-S 1277-Canther-Cancer Heterogeneity, Plasticity and Resistance to Therapies, Institut de Recherche contre le Cancer de Lille, University of Lille, CNRS, Inserm, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Lille, Lille, France) N Nicolas Duployez (Unité Mixte de Recherche (UMR) 9020-UMR-S 1277-Canther-Cancer Heterogeneity, Plasticity and Resistance to Therapies, Institut de Recherche contre le Cancer de Lille, University of Lille, CNRS, Inserm, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Lille, Lille, France) H Hervé Dombret L Lionel Adès

Abstract

Abstract Background: In older patients (pts) with newly diagnosed (ND) acute myeloid leukemia (AML), treatment options have expanded significantly. While intensive chemotherapy (ICT) remains the standard of care for fit pts, venetoclax (VEN)-based low-intensity therapies (LIT) are increasingly used. Despite existing guidelines, the choice between ICT and LIT varies in real-life practice. Advances in understanding the prognostic role of disease genetics have led to risk models for pts receiving LIT, mostly validated in clinical trials. Their relevance in unselected real-world populations, however, remains uncertain. In this study, we analyzed patterns of treatment intensity and evaluated the performance of LIT risk models in a real-world cohort of older pts with ND-AML. Methods: We analyzed data from the ND-AML cohort of the prospective ALFA-PPP study (NCT04777916), initiated in 2022 to collect real-life clinical and biological data from 29 centers. Centralized genomic (50-gene NGS) and MRD assessments were planned for all pts. We report findings from the first 652 pts aged ≥60 years enrolled between April 2022 and June 2025. In those treated with LIT, we assessed the prognostic value of the 4-gene molecular risk signature (mPRS, PMID: 38113472), the ELN-2024 classification (PMID: 39133932), and the refined ELN (rELN)-2024 model (PMID: 39486083). Results: Among 652 pts, 315 were female and 337 male (median age 71y [60–94]; ECOG 0–2/3–4: 625/27; HCT-CI 0–2/≥3: 401/251). AML was de novo in 442 pts (68%), therapy-related in 105 (16%), post-MDS in 70 (11%), and post-MPN in 35 (5%). Among 591 evaluable pts, NPM1, FLT3, IDH1/2, sAML-like mutations (PMID: 35767897), and MR cytogenetic abnormalities were seen in 25%, 21%, 21%, 58%, and 28%, respectively. Of 652 pts, 346 (53%) received ICT (7+3 based regimen: n=187; CPX-351: n=80; other: n=7) and 306 (47%) VEN-based LIT (VEN+azacitidine: n=305; VEN+LDAC: n=1). ICT was used in 89%, 78%, 60%, and 8% of pts aged 60–65, 65–70, 70–75, and >75y, respectively. According to investigators, main reasons for choosing LIT were advanced age (n=253, 83%), comorbidities (n=79, 26%), and AML features (n=74, 24%). Analysis showed that LIT use was independently associated with older age (p<.001), ECOG>2 (p=0.02), HCT-CI≥3 (p<.001), post-MDS (p=0.001), post-MPN (p<.001), sAML-like mutations (p<.001), MR karyotype (p<.001), and TP53 mutations (p<.001). With median follow-up of 15.3m (IQR 7.2–23.8), 12-month OS was 73% (95% CI, 68–79) with ICT vs 46% (95% CI, 40–52) with LIT. Among 288 LIT pts with genetic data (129 female [45%], 159 male [55%]; median age, 77 years [60–94]; ECOG 0–2/3–4: 270/18; HCT-CI 0–2/≥3: 152/136), the mPRS classified 139 (48%) pts as favorable risk, 77 (27%) as intermediate risk, and 72 (25%) as adverse risk. According to ELN-2024, 148 (51%) pts were categorized as favorable, 79 (27%) as intermediate, and 61 (21%) as adverse. The rELN-2024 model reclassified 58 pts (20%) as favorable, 133 (46%) as intermediate, and 97 (34%) as adverse. Median OS was 10.1 months (95% CI, 7.7–12.0). Median OS by mPRS was 13.7 months (95% CI, 11.7–18.9), 10.0 (6.5–13.9), and 4.8 (3.5–7.4) for favorable, intermediate, and adverse-risk pts, respectively. According to ELN-2024, median OS was 13.1 months (11.7–15.5), 10.0 (6.5–13.9), and 4.3 (3.0–7.4), while for rELN-2024, it was 31.0 months (14.2–NA), 11.5 (8.9–14.8), and 4.4 (3.3–7.2), for the favorable, intermediate, and adverse risk group, respectively. Discriminative performance for OS showed a Harrell's c-index of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.58–0.70) for mPRS, 0.64 (0.58–0.70) for ELN-2024, and 0.70 (0.64–0.76) for rELN-2024. Compared to ELN-2024, mPRS showed no significant difference in discriminative ability (pairwise C-index difference via non-parametric bootstrap: ΔC-index = –0.01 [95% CI, –0.02–0.01]; p=0.49). rELN-2024 significantly outperformed both mPRS (ΔC-index = +0.06 [95% CI, 0.02–0.10]; p<.01) and ELN-2024 (ΔC-index = +0.06 [95% CI, 0.02–0.10]; p<.01). Conclusions: In this real-world cohort of ND-AML pts aged ≥60 years, both ICT and VEN-based LIT were commonly administered, with treatment choice guided by patient- and disease-related factors. ICT was associated with encouraging OS outcomes in older selected pts. Among the prognostic models evaluated in the LIT group, the rELN-2024 showed superior discriminative performance compared to mPRS and ELN-2024, most notably by better identifying favorable-risk pts with substantially prolonged OS.

Article Details

Journal Blood
Volume / Issue Vol. 146, Issue Supplement 1
Published November 03, 2025
Pages 454-454
ISSN 0006-4971
Publisher Elsevier BV

Journal Info

Blood

Elsevier BV

ISSN: 0006-4971 Health Sciences

Authors (36)

L

Lin-Pierre Zhao

C

Céline Berthon

29Service d’Hématologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille, Hôpital Claude-Huriez, Lille, France

L

Lauren Fenwarth

3Laboratoire d'hématologie, CHU Lille, Lille, France, Lille, France

S

Stéphane de Botton

T

Thomas Cluzeau

15Service d’Hématologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Nice, France

L

Laure Farnault

28Service d’Hématologie, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille–Hôpital de la Conception, Marseille, France

S

Sylvain Chantepie

10Department of Hematology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen, Caen, France

P

Pierre Arnautou

8Service d'hématologie, HIA Percy, Clamart, France, Clamart, France

T

Thorsten Braun

Service Hématologie, Hôpital Avicenne, AP-HP, Paris

M

Mathieu Leclerc

8Hôpital Henri Mondor, Service d'Hématologie Clinique et de Thérapie Cellulaire, Créteil, France

D

Delphine Lebon

10CHU Amiens Picardie, Unité d'Hématologie clinique et Thérapie Cellulaire, Amiens, France

A

Ahmad Aljijakli

13Hematology Department, Centre Hospitalier d'Argenteuil, Argenteuil, France

I

Isabelle Plantier

32Department of Hematology, Centre Hospitalier Roubaix, Roubaix, France

O

Ollivier Legrand

14Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Service d'hématologie clinique et de thérapie cellulaire, Paris, France

J

Juliette Lambert

19Department of Hematology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Versailles, Versailles, France

C

Christophe Willekens

E

Emmanuel Raffoux

C

Claire Bories

5CH LENS, LENS, France

E

Emilie Lemasle

17Department of Hematology, Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France

K

Kevin-James Wattebled

22Centre Hospitalier Dunkerque, Dunkerque, France, Dunkerque, France

A

Ambroise Marcais

C

Celia Salanoubat

21CH Sud Francilien, Hematology, Corbeil-Essonnes, France

P

Pascal Turlure

16Department of Hematology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Limoges, Limoges, France

J

Jamilé Frayfer

30Hôpital de Meaux, Departement of Hematology, Meaux, France

B

Benjamin Carpentier

9St Vincent-de-Paul, GHICL, LILLE, France

M

Madalina Uzunov

11Sorbonne Université, AP-HP, Pitié- Salpêtrière Hospital, Department of Clinical Haematology, Paris, France

R

Reda Garidi

13CH Saint Quentin, Saint Quentin, France

I

Ioana Vaida

22Service d’Hématologie, Hôpital René-Dubos (Nord-Ouest Val-d'Oise), Pontoise, France

R

Renaud Buffet

14ALFA, Paris, France

A

Alexandra COELHO

13Centre HAYEM - IRSL, Paris, France

K

Karine Celli-Lebras

23Acute Leukemia French Intergroup Coordination, Paris, France

R

Raphaël Itzykson

6Department of Hematology, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France

C

Claude Preudhomme

Unité Mixte de Recherche (UMR) 9020-UMR-S 1277-Canther-Cancer Heterogeneity, Plasticity and Resistance to Therapies, Institut de Recherche contre le Cancer de Lille, University of Lille, CNRS, Inserm, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Lille, Lille, France

N

Nicolas Duployez

Unité Mixte de Recherche (UMR) 9020-UMR-S 1277-Canther-Cancer Heterogeneity, Plasticity and Resistance to Therapies, Institut de Recherche contre le Cancer de Lille, University of Lille, CNRS, Inserm, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Lille, Lille, France

H

Hervé Dombret

L

Lionel Adès