Treatment intensity may alter the prognostic impact of baseline co-mutations in newly diagnosed FLT3-ITD AML treated with FLT3 inhibitor-based therapy
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: FLT3 inhibitors (FLT3i) have improved outcomes in newly diagnosed (ND) FLT3-ITD mutated (mut) AML. A recent analysis of the QuANTUM-1 trial (Levis et al., EHA 2025) identified a subgroup of ND FLT3-ITD mut AML patients (pts) with co-occurring NPM1 mut +/- DNMT3A mut +/- epigenetic regulator mut as being particularly sensitive to intensive chemotherapy (IC) + Quizartinib. We sought to broadly assess the prognostic impact of baseline co-mutations (co-mut) in our cohort of ND FLT3-ITD mut AML. Methods Retrospective study conducted at MDACC, Houston including adults with ND FLT3-ITDmut AML who received frontline FLT3i-based IC or low intensity therapy (LIT) regimen from 09/2013 - 07/2024. FLT3-TKD mut were excluded. Baseline genetic mut were grouped for analysis as follows: Epigenetic regulator (DNMT3A/TET2/IDH1/IDH2/WT1), myelodysplasia related (MR; ASXL1, RUNX1, EZH2), and RAS pathway (KRAS, NRAS, PTPN11). Outcomes were stratified by baseline co-mut across IC/LIT regimens. Results A total of 213 pts were included; 83 received IC + FLT3i [sorafenib in 56 (68%), midostaurin in 1 (1%), gilteritinib in 23 (28%), and quizartinib in 3 (4%)] while 130 received LIT + FLT3i [including sorafenib in 32 (25%), midostaurin in 1 (1%), gilteritinib in 48 (37%), and quizartinib in 49 (38%)]. LIT regimens were venetoclax (VEN) based in 69 (53%) and non-VEN based in 61 (47%). In the IC+FLT3i group, median (med) age was 52 years (range 22 - 72). NPM1 co-mut was noted in 46 pts (55%). Other co-mut included epigenetic regulators (56, 68%), RAS pathway (17, 21%), and MR genes (12/82, 15%). NPM1 co-occurred with epigenetic regulator mut in 38 pts (46%). Composite complete remission (CRc = CR + CRi) was attained in 67 pts (81%) for the full IC + FLT3i cohort: CRc rates were higher among NPM1 co-mut (98% vs 60%, p<0.01), and lower among RAS pathway co-mut (59% vs 86%, p=0.02) or MR gene co-mut pts (42% vs 89%, p<0.01). CRc rates were also higher in the NPM1 + epigenetic regulator co-mut group when compared to those without mut in either NPM1 or epigenetic regulators (97% vs 74%, p= 0.01). A total of 47 pts (57%) underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT) in CR1. After a med follow up of 71.6 months (mos), med overall survival (OS) for the full IC cohort was not reached (NR); 3-year OS 58%. Pts with NPM1 co-mut had superior OS (med, NR vs 24 mos, p=0.05) while those with co-mut in MR genes (med, 13.3 mos vs NR, p<0.01) and RAS pathway (med, 10.2 mos vs NR, p=0.06) had lower OS. Pts with NPM1 + epigenetic regulator co-mut had a numerically higher med OS compared to those without mut in either (NR vs 66.3 mos, p=0.2). OS was similar for pts with DNMT3A vs no DNMT3A co-mut (med, 45.2 vs NR, p=0.7) and NPM1 with DNMT3A vs NPM1 without DNMT3A (med, NR vs NR, p=0.5). In the LIT+FLT3i group (n=130), med age was 72 years (range 23 - 91). NPM1 co-mut was noted in 54 pts (42%). Other co-mut included epigenetic regulators (84/128, 66%), MR genes (36/127, 28%), and RAS pathway (22, 17%). VEN was used (as HMA + VEN + FLT3i “triplet”) in 69 pts (53%). CRc was attained in 92 pts (71%). CRc rates were lower in RAS pathway co-mut (50% vs 95%, p=0.04), while there was no difference in CRc rates when stratified by NPM1 (72% vs 70%, p=0.85) or MR gene co-mut (69% vs 73%, p=0.83). CRc rates were similar in the NPM1 + epigenetic regulator co-mut group compared to those without either (77% vs 64%, p=0.31). CRc rates were higher with triplet compared to LIT + FLT3i (no VEN) (87% vs 53%, p<0.01). 29 pts (22%) underwent SCT in CR1. With a med follow-up of 35.8 mos, med OS for the full LIT + FLT3i cohort was 14.1 mos. There was a trend to lower OS in RAS pathway mut pts (med, 13.6 vs 14.1 mos, p=0.08), but no difference when stratified by NPM1 (med, 11.6 vs 15.6 mos, p=0.7) or MR gene co-mut (med, 15.8 vs 12 mos, p=0.5). Pts with NPM1 + epigenetic regulator co-mut had similar OS compared to those without either (14 vs 14 mos, p=0.7). Conclusions The impact of baseline co-mut on frontline FLT3i-based therapy in ND FLT3-ITD mut AML may vary by the nature of the induction regimen. The presence of NPM1 mut +/- epigenetic regulator mut was associated with improved outcomes with IC + FLT3i, consistent with findings from QuANTUM-1, but importantly, we noted that co-mut in RAS pathway and MR genes portended a poorer prognosis. In contrast, co-mut in NPM1 and MR genes did not influence outcomes with LIT + FLT3i regimens (with or without VEN).
Article Details
Authors (19)
Sankalp Arora
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Division of Cancer Medicine, Houston, United States
Jayastu Senapati
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Nicholas Short
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Musa Yilmaz
Sanam Loghavi
Tapan Kadia
2Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Courtney DiNardo
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Leukemia, Houston, United States
Gautam Borthakur
5MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Joseph Jabbour
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Leukemia, Houston, United States
Hannah Goulart
1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Leukemia, Houston, United States
Ghayas Issa
2Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Naveen Pemmaraju
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States
Wei-Ying Jen
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Hussein Abbas
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Leukemia, Houston, United States
Michael Andreeff
1Section of Molecular Hematology and Therapy, Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Hagop Kantarjian
2Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Guillermo Garcia-Manero
Farhad Ravandi
Department of Leukemia The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USA
Naval Daver
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX