作者
Hartmut Döhner,Keith W. Pratz,Courtney D. DiNardo,Andrew H. Wei,Brian A. Jonas,Vinod Pullarkat,Michael J. Thirman,Christan Récher,Andre C. Schuh,Sunil Babu,Xiaotong Li,Grace Ku,Zihuan Liu,Yan Sun,Jalaja Potluri,Monique Dail,Brenda Chyla,Daniel A. Pollyea
摘要
European LeukemiaNet (ELN) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) genetic risk classification systems were based on response to intensive chemotherapy; their ability to discriminate outcomes in older patients treated with venetoclax-azacitidine may be suboptimal. Here, pooled analysis of patients in the phase 3 VIALE-A trial (NCT02993523) and phase 1b study (NCT02203773) examined prognostic stratification according to 2017 and 2022 ELN risk classifications. A bioinformatic algorithm derived new molecular signatures differentiating venetoclax-azacitidine-treated patients based on median overall survival (OS). 279 patients treated with venetoclax-azacitidine and 113 patients treated with placebo-azacitidine were analyzed. When classified by ELN 2017 or 2022 prognostic criteria, most patients had adverse-risk AML (60.2% and 72.8% for venetoclax-azacitidine and 65.5% and 75.2% for placebo-azacitidine, respectively). While outcomes with venetoclax-azacitidine were improved across all ELN risk groups compared with placebo-azacitidine, ELN classification systems poorly discriminated venetoclax-azacitidine outcomes. By applying a bioinformatic algorithm, new molecular signatures were derived differentiating OS outcomes with venetoclax-azacitidine; the mutational status of TP53, FLT3-ITD, NRAS, and KRAS categorized patients into higher-, intermediate-, and lower-benefit groups (52%, 25%, and 23% of patients, respectively), each associated with a distinct median OS (26.5 months [95% CI, 20.2 to 32.7], 12.1 months [95% CI, 7.3 to 15.2], and 5.5 months [95% CI, 2.8 to 7.6], respectively). ELN prognostic classifiers do not provide clinically meaningful risk stratification of OS outcomes for patients with AML treated with venetoclax-azacitidine. TP53, FLT3-ITD, NRAS, and KRAS mutation status allows classification of these patients into three risk groups with distinct differences in median OS.