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.
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your AML Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe 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, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Kura Oncology, Roche and Syndax and has been supported through a grant from Bristol Myers Squibb. 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.
Bookmark this article
Both acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are associated with poor outcomes, particularly in patients with high-risk disease: 5-year survival rates for AML and MDS are 28.7% and 8%, respectively. Currently, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is the only putative cure for these patients, though the 70% relapse and 10% long-term survival rates are rather dismal. This, combined with a lack of robustly effective salvage regimens, has led to renewed efforts to prevent relapse.
Both venetoclax, a BCL2 inhibitor, and hypomethylating agents, such as decitabine, have shown promise in the treatment of AML and MDS, even in high-risk disease, though there is a lack of information regarding these treatments in the post-transplant setting. Yunxiong Wei et al. recently published a prospective study in Cancer Science to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of low dose decitabine and venetoclax as post-transplant maintenance therapy in patients with high-risk AML and MDS.1
This was a prospective study that included 20 patients, aged ≥18 years and ≤70 years, with high-risk AML (n = 17) and high-risk MDS (n = 3), who underwent allo‑HSCT (within 2 months). All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of ≤2, an absolute neutrophil count ≥500/µL, a platelet count ≥50,000/µL, and no uncontrolled active infections. Patients with active acute or chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), or impaired renal or hepatic function were excluded. Results reported herein are from the past 3 years, and recruitment is ongoing.
Patients with AML were considered high risk if they were ≥60 years of age or had:
Patients with MDS were considered high risk if they had ≥3 World Health Organization Prognostic Scoring System points or >4.5 International Prognostic Scoring System-Revised points.
The treatment regimen consisted of 15 mg/m2 decitabine on Day 1 to Day 3 and 200 mg venetoclax on Day 1 to Day 21, beginning at about Day 100 post-transplant. There were ten treatment cycles, with a cycle interval of 2 months.
Primary endpoints included:
Secondary endpoints included:
There were 20 patients meeting the eligibility criteria, with a median age of 35.5 years (range, 21‒64 years). Of the 17 patients with high-risk AML, two had a prior diagnosis of MDS. Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics*
Patient characteristics, % unless otherwise stated |
Total patients (N = 20) |
---|---|
Male gender |
40 |
Disease type |
|
AML |
75 |
MDS |
15 |
MDS transformed to AML |
10 |
CR1 |
35 |
CR2 |
30 |
Others |
35 |
MRD detection method |
|
Flow cytometry |
100 |
PCR |
75 |
Disease status at transplant |
|
CR |
85 |
MRD negative |
25 |
MRD positive |
60 |
PR |
15 |
High-risk factor |
|
Primary refractory/relapsed |
60 |
>60 years old |
15 |
Complex cytogenetic aberrations |
35 |
Molecular characteristics with poor prognosis† |
65 |
WBC >100 x 109/L |
10 |
WPSS points ≥3 or IPSS-R points >4.5 |
15 |
Median CD34+ cells at transplant, 106 (range) |
4.79 (3.0‒8.25) |
Donor type |
|
Haploidentical HLA-matched donor |
85 |
Matched sibling donor |
15 |
Median days of neutrophils ≥0.5 × 109/L |
12 (10‒16) |
Median days of platelets ≥20 × 109/L |
17 (10‒29) |
Median follow-up time, days (range) |
598 (149‒1,072) |
AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CR, complete remission; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; IPSS-R, International Prognostic Scoring System-Revised; MDS, myelodysplastic syndromes; MRD, minimal residual disease; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; PR, partial remission; WBC, white blood cell; WPSS, World Health Organization Prognostic Scoring System. |
Tumor lysis syndrome is a concern for patients with high tumor burden who are treated with venetoclax, though no cases of tumor lysis syndrome were reported in this study. Grade ≥2 AEs occurred in 55% of patients and are reported in Table 2. The most common AEs were neutropenia (n = 7), anemia (n = 6), thrombocytopenia (n = 4), diarrhea (n = 4), fatigue (n = 2), and neutropenic fever (n = 1).
Table 2. Grade ≥2 adverse events occurring during maintenance with low dose decitabine and venetoclax*
Event |
Grade 2 |
Grade 3 |
Grade 4 |
Grade 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Neutropenia |
6 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
Anemia |
5 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
Thrombocytopenia |
4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
Neutropenic fever |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Diarrhea |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Fatigue |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
*Adapted from Wei, et al.1 |
All reported toxicities were tolerable and reversible, though one patient had a dose reduction for one cycle due to persistent severe neutropenia. There were no treatment-related deaths.
At a median follow up of 598 days (range, 149‒1,072 days), median EFS was 525 days. In total, 17 patients still had EFS at the time of publication. Regarding the remaining three patients:
Results after low dose decitabine + venetoclax maintenance are as follows:
Patients were treated with a prophylactic GvHD regimen (cyclosporin A, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil); patients who developed GvHD were treated with cyclosporin A and glucocorticoids (except for three patients who received tacrolimus instead of cyclosporin A).
Nine patients had aGvHD prior to receiving low dose decitabine + venetoclax maintenance, and two patients had aGvHD after maintenance therapy; four patients had chronic GvHD after maintenance therapy. There were no GvHD-related deaths, and maintenance therapy was not found to increase any of the side effects of GvHD treatment (namely increased blood pressure and increased blood glucose). There was no difference noted in the occurrence of GvHD between patients who did or did not receive a hypomethylating agent prior to transplantation.
This prospective study demonstrated that low dose decitabine + venetoclax is as safe and efficacious as maintenance therapy following allo-HSCT in patients with high-risk AML/MDS. There were no reported irreversible regimen-related toxicities, likely owing to the extended cycle interval (2 months vs 4 weeks) and reduced daily dosage of venetoclax (200 mg vs 400 mg) used in this study. The reduction in the venetoclax dose did not appear to impact the regimen’s efficacy, with 2-year OS and EFS rates of 85.2% and 84.7%, respectively. One important note is that the authors hypothesized that decitabine + venetoclax may influence the graft-versus-leukemia effect, though no evidence of this was observed, potentially due to the small sample size. Further investigation of this maintenance regimen in larger cohorts is required.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to AML delivered to your inbox