The aml Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the aml Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The aml and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The AML Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Johnson & Johnson, Kura Oncology and Syndax, and has been supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and the Hippocrate Conference Institute, an association of the Servier Group. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View aml content recommended for you
The combination of fludarabine, cytarabine and granulocyte colony stimulating factor (FLAG) with idarubicin (FLAG-IDA) is an effective treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed (ND) and relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML).1 FLAG-IDA is also used for the treatment of patients with core binding factor (CBF) AML, though it was historically combined with gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO; FLAG-GO) until GO was withdrawn from the market in the United States.2
During the 61st American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting & Exposition, two abstracts focusing on the FLAG-IDA regimen for the treatment of AML were presented. Gautam M. Borthakur, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, US, presented results from a study comparing FLAG-IDA to FLAG-GO in patients with CBF AML, whilst Iman Aboudalle, American University of Beirut, Beirut, LB, discussed the results of a phase Ib/II trial investigating if the addition of venetoclax to the FLAG-IDA regimen could improve efficacy in patients with ND and R/R AML.1,2 This article summarizes the results from both presentations.
Patients with CBF AML (with inversion [16] or translocation [8;21]) are highly responsive to high-dose cytarabine and, as such, to the FLAG-IDA and FLAG-GO regimens. Additionally, the presence of unique disease-defining fusion genes (RUNX1-RUNX1T1, CBFB-MYH11) allows measurable residual disease (MRD) monitoring by quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (qRTPCR) with high sensitivity at 10-5. Three log reduction in fusion transcripts at the end of induction, or four log or more at the end of three cycles, or at the end of all treatments, has previously been shown to be associated with a better remission duration
This current study analyzed the outcomes of ND patients with CBF AML, treated with FLAG-IDA or FLAG-GO for induction (Cycle one) and post-remission consolidation (Cycles 2–7). The study aimed to:
The dosing schedule for both regimens is shown in Table 1. Fusion transcripts, RUNX1-RUNX1T1 or CBFB-MYH11, were assessed at baseline and every 2–3 months via qRTPCR during consolidation.
Table 1. Dosing schedule for FLAG-GO and FLAG-IDA2FLAG, fludarabine; cytarabine and granulocyte colony stimulating factor; G-CSF, granulocyte colony stimulating factor; GO, gemtuzumab ozogamicin; IDA, idarubicin
Induction
Consolidation
FLAG backbone
Fludarabine
30mg/m2 on Days 1–5
30mg/m2 on Days 1–3
Cytarabine
2g/m2 on Days 1–5
2g/m2 on Days 1–3
G-CSF
5mcg/kg on Days 1–5
5mcg/kg on Days 1–5
Addition of GO vs IDA
GO
3mg/m2 on Day one
3mg/m2 in one of the planned six post-remission cycles
IDA
6mg/m2 on Days three and four
6mg/m2 in one of the planned four post-remission cycles
Best response results are shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Responses by regimen2CR, complete remission; CRi, complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery; FLAG-GO, fludarabine cytarabine, granulocyte colony stimulating factor with gemtuzumab ozogamicin; FLAG-IDA, fludarabine cytarabine, granulocyte colony stimulating factor with idarubicin; RFS, relapse-free survival
Total cohort
FLAG-GO
FLAG-IDA
p value
N
153
50
103
-
CR/CRi, n (%)
153 (99)
50 (96)
103 (100)
0.14
Early death
2 (3)
2 (4)
0
-
Molecular response
Three-log reduction after induction
68/140 (49)
30 (65)
38 (40)
0.01
Four-log reduction after Cycle 3
68/131 (52)
30 (75)
38 (42)
< 0.001
Four-log reduction at end of therapy
83/123 (67)
36 (92)
47 (56)
< 0.001
RFS
RFS at a median follow-up of 65 months, %
Not reported
87%
67%
0.015
Multivariate analysis comparing FLAG-GO to FLAG-IDA found significant associations as shown in Table 3. Interestingly, the presence of KIT or any kinase mutation (KIT, RAS or FLT3) did not impact RFS
FLAG-GO, fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony stimulating factor with gemtuzumab ozogamicin; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; RFS, relapse-free survival
Outcome
Factor
Impact
p value
HR
95% CI
RFS
Age
Worsened
0.001
1.03
1.01–1.05
RFS
Regimen (FLAG-GO)
Improved
0.046
0.392
0.157–0.983
RFS
Three-log reduction in fusion transcripts post-induction
Improved
0.026
0.412
0.189–0.897
RFS
Four-log or higher reduction in fusion transcripts at end of treatment
Improved
0.001
0.3
0.15–0.63
OS
Age
Worsened
0.002
1.035
1.013–1.058
OS
Four-log or higher reduction in fusion transcripts at end of treatment
Improved
0.02
0.41
0.19–0.87
This study confirmed previous results that a reduction of fusion transcript ratio led to in improvement in RFS. Additionally, a four-log reduction of fusion transcript ratio at the end of therapy was associated with both RFS (p= 0.001) and OS (p= 0.013). FLAG-GO was the only predictor for achievement of optimal qRTPCR response at all time points.
This study has demonstrated that both FLAG-GO and FLAG-IDA regimens can induce high response rates in patients with newly diagnosed CBF AML. Other key takeaways include:2
Eligible patients had AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of two or less, and adequate organ function. At data cut-off, 40 patients had been enrolled with a median age of 48 years (range: 21–72), and 18% of patients over the age of 60. Patients had received a median of two prior therapies (range: 1–4), 40% had adverse cytogenetics and 38% had received prior allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT).
CR+CRi, complete remission + complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery; MRD, measurable residual disease; ND, newly diagnosed; ORR; overall response rate; R/R, relapsed/refractory
Phase Ib
Phase II
Patient population
R/R AML
R/R AML
ND AML
N
16
10
14
ORR, n (%)
12 (75)
7 (70)
13 (93)
Best response of CR+CRi, n (%)
12 (75)
7 (70)
12 (85)
MRD-negativity by flow cytometry, n (%)
9 (56)
5 (50)
11 (85)
Best response after one cycle, n (%)
10 (83)
6 (85)
13 (100)
AE, %
Grade 3–4
Grade 5
Infections
32
4
Bacteremia
18
0
Hypokalemia
18
0
Hypophosphatemia
16
0
ALT increase
10
0
This study concluded that FLAG-IDA, in combination with venetoclax, is efficacious in patients with R/R AML and fit patients with ND AML. The phase II portion of the study is ongoing with a longer follow-up required to establish a survival benefit.
Both studies reported here have shown that FLAG-based regimens have an important role in the treatment of AML, including in the ND and R/R setting, and in various subtypes of AML such as CBF AML. Moving forward, longer follow-up is required to understand if there is a survival benefit when venetoclax is added to FLAG-IDA, and monitoring of fusion transcript levels in CBF AML may be used to help identify patients more likely to experience sustained remissions.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content