Clinical Outcomes Following Treatment with Gilteritinib or Quizartinib in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory FLT3-ITD+ Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Background: Gilteritinib is approved for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) FLT3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML), based on findings from the phase 3 ADMIRAL trial (Perl AE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019). A phase 3 trial, QuANTUM-R, demonstrated the benefit of quizartinib in pts with R/R AML with FLT3 internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) mutations (Cortes JE, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019). Although eligibility criteria across both studies were similar, QuANTUM-R was more stringent as to prior therapy intensity and remission duration, which potentially enriched for higher-risk pts. We sought to describe outcomes from ADMIRAL among pts who otherwise met eligibility for QuANTUM-R.

Methods: In this post-hoc analysis, a subset of pts from ADMIRAL were matched with R/R FLT3-ITD+ AML pts from QuANTUM-R on the basis of baseline characteristics and prior treatment criteria. Matched pts were either refractory to initial anthracycline-based chemotherapy or had relapsed ≤6 mos after achieving composite complete remission (CRc) with an anthracycline-based regimen.

Results: Overall, 218 pts with R/R FLT3-ITD+ AML in the ADMIRAL trial (gilteritinib, n=140; salvage chemotherapy [SC], n=78) were matched with the QuANTUM-R intention-to treat (ITT) population (N=367; quizartinib, n=245; SC, n=122). Proportions of pts preselected for high-intensity SC were 66% (n=143/218) in the matched ADMIRAL ITT population and 77% (n=281/367) in the QuANTUM-R ITT populations. Demographic and baseline characteristics of the matched ADMIRAL ITT population and QuANTUM-R ITT population were similar. Median durations of exposure to gilteritinib and quizartinib were 3.8 mos and 3.2 mos, respectively, and median number of treatment cycles received were five and four, respectively. Rates of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) were similar in pts treated with gilteritinib (35%; n=49/140) or quizartinib (32%; n=78/245), as were the proportions of pts who resumed gilteritinib (23%; n=32/140) or quizartinib (20%; n=48/245) therapy post-HSCT.

Median overall survival (OS) in pts treated with gilteritinib or quizartinib was longer than that observed with SC. After a median follow-up of 17.4 mos, median OS was 10.2 mos with gilteritinib versus 5.6 mos with SC (hazard ratio [HR]=0.573 [95% CI: 0.403, 0.814]; one-sided nominal P=0.0008). After a median follow-up of 23.5 mos, median OS with quizartinib was 6.2 mos versus 4.7 mos with SC (HR=0.76 [95% CI: 0.58-0.98]; one-sided P=0.02). After censoring for HSCT, median OS was 9.3 mos with gilteritinib versus 5.5 mos with SC (HR=0.525 [95% CI: 0.356-0.775]; nominal one-sided P=0.0005), and 5.7 mos versus 4.6 mos with quizartinib versus SC, respectively (HR=0.79 [95% CI: 0.59, 1.05]; one-sided P=0.05). In both QuANTUM-R and matched ADMIRAL populations, the survival benefits of quizartinib and gilteritinib compared with SC were maintained across multiple subgroups, including high FLT3-ITD allelic ratio subsets.

Compared with SC, high CRc rates were observed in pts treated with either gilteritinib (57%; n=80/140) or quizartinib (48%; n=118/245). The complete remission (CR) rate with gilteritinib was 23% (n=32/140), whereas the CR rate with quizartinib was 4% (n=10/245) (Table). Median time to achieve CRc was 1.8 mos with gilteritinib and 1.1 mos with quizartinib, median duration of CRc was 5.5 mos with gilteritinib and 2.8 mos with quizartinib.

The safety profiles of gilteritinib and quizartinib were generally similar, though aspartate or alanine aminotransferase elevations (any grade) were more frequent with gilteritinib (41-44%) than quizartinib (≤13%), whereas neutropenia (14% vs 34%, respectively), fatigue (24% vs 39%, respectively), and prolonged QT intervals (9% vs 27%, respectively) were more frequent with quizartinib.

Conclusions: In pts with R/R FLT3-ITD+ AML and similar baseline characteristics, both gilteritinib and quizartinib were generally well tolerated and associated with improved survival and treatment response compared with SC. Responses to gilteritinib and quizartinib, as measured by CRc, were similar; blood count recovery varied between the two FLT3 inhibitors. Although cross-study comparisons have substantial limitations, the findings suggest that while remission is achieved faster with quizartinib, response may be more durable and survival potentially longer with gilteritinib.

View largeDownload slide

View largeDownload slide

Close modal