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.
The AML Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy
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, Johnson & Johnson, Kura Oncology, Roche, Syndax and Thermo Fisher, 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.
Prognostic utility of ELN risk criteria for stratifying survival outcomes in patients with ND AML ineligible for intensive chemotherapy
Bookmark this article
|
Results from a retrospective pooled analysis of data from the phase III VIALE-A trial (NCT02993523) and a phase Ib trial (NCT02203773) were published by Döhner et al.1 in Blood. The study investigated the prognostic utility of the 2017 and 2022 ELN risk criteria for stratifying survival outcomes in older treatment-naïve patients with AML who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. A total of 279 patients treated with Ven + Aza and 113 treated with Pbo + Aza were assessed.1 |
| Key learnings |
| Most patients were classified as having adverse-risk AML based on the ELN 2017 or 2022 criteria (60.2% and 72.8% for Ven + Aza and 65.5% and 75.2% for Pbo + Aza, respectively). |
| Using the ELN 2022 criteria, the mOS improved with Ven + Aza vs Pbo + Aza in the favorable- (39.0 vs 11.0 months), intermediate- (15.2 vs 9.1 months), and adverse- (12.7 vs 9.3 months) risk groups. |
| Patients treated with Ven + Aza were categorized into higher-, intermediate-, and lower-benefit groups (52%, 25%, and 23% of patients, respectively) using a novel 4-gene prognostic mutational model (TP53, FLT3-ITD, NRAS, and KRAS); each linked with a mOS of 26.5 months, 12.1 months, and 5.5 months, respectively. |
| The findings suggest that the 2017 and 2022 ELN risk groups did not provide clinically meaningful stratification for patients treated with Ven + Aza. Further validation of the mutational model in larger independent datasets, particularly in those with high-risk AML, is warranted. |
Abbreviations: AML, acute myeloid leukemia; Aza, azacitidine; ELN, European LeukemiaNet; ITD, internal tandem duplication; mOS, median overall survival; ND, newly diagnosed; Pbo, placebo; Ven, venetoclax.
- Döhner H, Pratz KW, DiNardo CD, et al. Genetic risk stratification and outcomes among treatment-naive patients with AML treated with venetoclax and azacitidine. Blood. 2024;144(21):2211–2222. DOI:10.1182/blood.2024024944.
Your opinion matters
28 votes - 49 days left ...
Related articles
Newsletter
Subscribe to get the best content related to AML delivered to your inbox