Venetoclax-Azacitidine As Salvage Therapy and Bridge to Allogeneic Cell Transplantation in Relapsed/Refractory AML Compared to Historical Data of the SAL Registry Study

Background

Venetoclax (VEN)-based combination therapy with hypomethylating agents (HMA) has been approved for first-line treatment in patients ineligible for intensive treatment based on two randomized trials. There is some evidence for efficacy also in the in relapsed/ refractory setting (R/R), but comparative controlled data is lacking.

Here, we report our experience of VEN-Azacitidine (AZA) in R/R AML salvage treatment and bridge to allogeneic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) in fit patients compared to historical data from the Study Alliance Leukemia (SAL) registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03188874).

Design/Methods

We analyzed all patients with R/R AML after initial intensive therapy, who started VEN-AZA salvage treatment at the University Hospital Heidelberg, between October 2018 and October 2020. Patients, who were bridged to allo-HCT were compared in a multivariable analysis to data of R/R AML patients from the SAL registry receiving an allo-HCT.

Results:

A total of 26 patients (median age 60 years, range 23 to 79) were included. All patients initially received intensive therapy, 16 patients (62%) had been refractory to intensive induction therapy with DA (daunorubicin, cytarabine) (11 patients)/ CPX-351 (2 patients) or to an intensive salvage therapy regime with HAM (2 patients)/ Cytarabin-Bortezomib (1 patient). Ten patients (38%) had morphologic (7 patients) or molecular relapse (3 patients) after intensive first line therapy.

The distribution of AML according to WHO-2016 classification was n=10 recurrent genetic abnormalities (n= 7, mutated NPM1; n=1, biallelic CEBPA mutations; n=1, mutated RUNX1; n=1, CBFB-MYH11), n=10 AML with MRC, n=6 AML NOS. According to the 2017 ELN classification, 9 patients (34,5%) had low risk, 8 (31%) intermediate risk and 9 (34,5%) adverse risk disease.

All patients received AZA 75mg/m² for 7 days combined with VEN 400mg/day after initial ramp up or a reduced dose of 100mg/day in case of co-medication with azoles in 28 days cycles. Best response was CR/CRi in 58% (n=15), PR in 23% (n=6) patients. Day 30-mortality was 0%, day 60-mortality was 4% (n=1).

Allo-HCT was performed in 20 patients (77%). Pre-Allo-HCT remission status was CR/CRi in 11 (55%), PR in 4 (20%) patients and MLFS in 1 patient and 4 patients had active disease (n=3, relapse after achieving CR/CRi on VEN-AZA, n=1 refractory to VEN-AZA.). At the time of analysis 15 (75%) of the 20 bridged patients were alive and 11 (55%) are still in CR resulting in a median relapse-free survival in bridged patients of 406 days, whereas all patients not proceeding to allo-HCT died after a median of 139 days.

In total, 63 patients with R/R AML were identified in the SAL-registry proceeding to allo-HCT with non VEN-based salvage attempt. Pre-Allo-HCT remission status was CR/CRi in 18 (28%), PR in 15 (24%), unknown in 13 patients (21%) and 17 (27%) patients had active disease (n=9 relapsed, n=8 refractory). Patients of the SAL registry were younger (median, 55 years; range, 22-75 years) and more patients were ELN-int (low risk, 32%, n=20; int, 52%, n=33, adv, 16%, n=10). Median follow-up in the VEN-AZA and the SAL cohorts were 1.4 years and 4.6 years, respectively.

Cox-regression modeling of survival measured from the date of being refractory/relapsed revealed a non-significant effect of the cohorts favoring the VEN-AZA salvage therapy (HR, 0.87, p=0.73).

However, stratified univariable survival analysis revealed in trend better survival (p=0.10) in the VEN-AZA compared to the SAL cohort with 77% (95%-CI, 62-95%) and 74% (95%-CI, 57-97%) as well as 84% (95%-CI, 76-94%) and 52% (95-CI, 41-68%) 1- and 2-years survival, respectively.

Conclusion:

Our data confirms the efficacy of VEN-AZA in patients with R/R AML and underlines its potential as an effective strategy for bridging to successful allo-HCT.