All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a healthcare professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit Know AML.

  TRANSLATE

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 Hub 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 Daiichi Sankyo, Kura Oncology, Syndax, Abbvie, Thermo Fisher and Johnson & Johnson. 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 more

Phase III HOVON 156 AML trial: Gilteritinib vs midostaurin in ND FLT3-mutated AML

By Amy Hopkins

Share:

Jul 14, 2026

Learning objective: After reading this article, learners will be able to cite a new clinical development in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia.


Results from the phase III, multicenter, open-label HOVON 156 AML (NCT04027309) trial, also referred to as AMLSG28-18 or PASHA, evaluating gilteritinib (n = 384) vs midostaurin (n = 384) in adult patients with newly diagnosed (ND) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) were presented by Marc Raaijmakers at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2026 Congress, Jun 11–14, 2026, Stockholm, SE. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and key secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), complete remission (CR) rate after induction, and modified EFS.

Key data: At an overall median follow-up of 43.2 months, the median OS was not reached (NR) in either group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81–1.28; p = 0.864). The CR rate after induction was 78.9% with gilteritinib vs 83.3% with midostaurin (p = 0.128), with CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) rates of 2.9% vs 3.6%. The median EFS was 51.1 months with gilteritinib vs 19.9 months with midostaurin (HR, 0.83; p = 0.052). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 96.9% vs 96.6% of patients and serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 68.2% vs 59.4% of patients with gilteritinib vs midostaurin; the most common SAE in both arms was infections and infestations (43.2% vs 35.6%).

Key learning: The primary endpoint was not met, and gilteritinib and midostaurin demonstrated comparable OS in patients with ND FLT3m AML. Gilteritinib was generally well tolerated, with numerically greater rates of infectious SAEs than midostaurin.

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

Your opinion matters

What is the typical turnaround time for next-generation sequencing (NGS) results for AML at your center?