Single versus double “7+3” induction with 60 versus 90 mg/m2 daunorubicin in newly diagnosed AML: Does it matter for NPM1 MRD?
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The randomized-controlled SAL DaunoDouble trial (NCT02140242) showed no significant differences in complete remission (CR) rates or survival between 60 mg/m² and 90 mg/m² of daunorubicin (Dauno), or between single and double induction in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed AML eligible for intensive chemotherapy (Röllig et al., JCO, 2024). To further study the impact of Dauno dose-escalation and the number of induction cycles in more detail, and to evaluate possible implications for post-remission therapy, we aimed to retrospectively analyze NPM1 measurable residual disease (MRD) kinetics in this study population. Methods Pts treated within DaunoDouble were retrospectively screened for data on NPM1 MRD. MRD was assessed within standard of care on bone marrow (BM) samples using a quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay at the central reference laboratory. The assay achieves a validated sensitivity of 0.001%; pts were analyzed based on a threshold of 0.1% NPM1/ABL1. Time-to-event variables were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical analyses were performed using R v4.5.0. Results Data on post-induction MRD were available for 79 pts with NPM1-mutated AML who achieved a CR/CRi. The median age of this cohort was 51 years (range, 24-64), 49 pts (62%) were female. Most pts (97%) had de-novo AML. According to the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2017 risk classification, 78%, 22%, and 0% of pts had favorable, intermediate, and adverse risk disease, respectively. A FLT3-ITD co-mutation was observed in 31% of pts. Eighteen pts (23%) underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) in CR1. The median post-induction NPM1 load showed no significant differences after induction with Dauno 60 mg/m2 versus 90 mg/m2 (0.6% vs. 0.3%, p=0.601). Likewise, rates of MRD-negative remission did not significantly differ between pts receiving Dauno 60 mg/m2 and those receiving 90 mg/m2 (27% vs. 30%, p=0.804). In contrast, when comparing one versus two induction cycles, we detected a significantly lower post-induction MRD load in pts receiving double induction (0.1% vs. 1.5%, p<0.001). Pts receiving two cycles were significantly more likely to attain MRD-negative remissions (40% vs. 15%, p=0.015). As per March 22nd 2025, after a median follow-up of 43.7 months, the median overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort was not reached, with a corresponding 2-year OS rate of 86%. The 2-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate of the entire cohort was 59%. When analyzing the entire cohort irrespective of post-remission treatment, the RFS in pts achieving MRD-negative CR was numerically longer when compared to pts being MRD-positive (median RFS (mRFS), NR vs. 42.5 months, 2-year RFS rate, 77% vs. 52%, p=0.084). When focusing on pts with cytarabine-based consolidation in CR1, the RFS benefit in MRD-negative pts was more pronounced and significantly longer than in MRD-positive pts (median RFS, NR vs. 15.3 months, 2-year RFS rate, 78% vs. 39%, p=0.014). With respect to the benefit of alloHCT in CR1, RFS was relevantly longer in MRD-positive pts undergoing alloHCT compared to chemotherapy consolidation (2-year RFS rate 83% vs. 41%, p=0.059). In contrast, alloHCT in CR1 did not improve RFS in pts considered MRD-negative post-induction (2-year RFS rate 69% vs. 67%, p=0.597). In terms of OS, we did not observe any relevant differences in pts with positive versus negative NPM1 MRD, regardless of post-remission therapy. Conclusions Dauno dose escalation from 60 to 90 mg/m2 in first induction did not improve depth of response in terms of NPM1 MRD levels. However, pts with double induction were more likely to achieve MRD-negative remissions and attained a higher reduction in their MRD load. Pts achieving MRD-negative remissions showed improved RFS which was statistically significant in pts not undergoing alloHCT in CR1. Regarding RFS, MRD-positive pts seemed to benefit from alloHCT in CR1, whereas MRD negative pts did not. Post-induction MRD status was not predictive of OS, most likely due to retained chemosensitivity and high efficacy of salvage alloHCT in pts with relapsed NPM1-mutated AML. Our results confirm that 60 mg/m² of Dauno is equipotent to 90 mg/m² on a molecular level, and sufficient for induction therapy. In addition, we demonstrate the predictive value of NPM1 MRD on relapse risk, as well as the value of alloHCT in pts with an insufficient response to induction.
Article Details
Authors (44)
Leo Ruhnke
27Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Christoph Röllig
22Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Lydia Kretschmer
1Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Björn Steffen
26Department of Medicine II, Hematology/Oncology, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany
Christoph Schliemann
Jan-Henrik Mikesch
1Department of Medicine A, Hematology, Oncology, and Pneumology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
Regina Herbst
7Department III of Internal Medicine, Klinikum Chemnitz, Chemnitz, Germany
Mathias Hänel
7Department III of Internal Medicine, Klinikum Chemnitz, Chemnitz, Germany
Maher Hanoun
19Department of Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
Thomas Schroeder
21University Medical Center Essen/Germany, Essen, Germany
Martin Kaufmann
22Department of Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Robert Bosch Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany
Barbora Weinbergerova
7Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
Kerstin Schaefer-Eckart
8Department of Internal Medicine V, Nuremberg Hospital North, Paracelsus Medical University, Nuremberg, Germany
Tim Sauer
3Department of Internal Medicine V, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
Andreas Burchert
6Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Marburg, Germany
Claudia Baldus
7Department of Hematology, Kiel University Hospital, Kiel, Germany
Jolana Mertová
12Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, Prague, Czech Republic
Edgar Jost
Dirk Niemann
14Department of Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Care, Gemeinschaftsklinikum Mittelrhein, Koblenz, Germany
Jan Novak
Stefan Krause
Ulf Schnetzke
2Klinik für Innere Medizin II, Abteilung für Hämatologie und Iinternistische Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany
Andreas Hochhaus
18Department of Hematology/Oncology, Klinik für Innere Medizin II, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany
Gerhard Held
18Klinik für Innere Medizin 1, Westpfalzklinikum, Kaiserslautern, Germany
Tomas Szotkowski
19Department of Hemato-Oncology, Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
Andreas Rank
Christoph Schmid
Augsburg University Hospital
Lars Fransecky
14Department of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Markus Schaich
21Department of Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Care, Rems-Murr-Kliniken, Winnenden, Germany
Michael Krämer
Frank Fiebig
1Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Annett Haake
1Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Johannes Schetelig
4Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany
Jan Moritz Middeke
Friedrich Stoelzel
11Department of Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Klaus Metzeler
4Department of Hematology, Cell Therapy, Hemostaseology and Infectious Diseases, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
Uwe Platzbecker
Carsten Müller-Tidow
Wolfgang Berdel
3Department of Medicine A, University Hospital, Münster, Germany
Gerhard Ehninger
4Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany
Jiri Mayer
6Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Brno and Masaryk University Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
Hubert Serve
Martin Bornhäuser
Christian Thiede
7University Hospital, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany