Outcomes of Patients Receiving Intensive Therapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia Relapsed after/Refractory to Frontline Less-Intensive Therapy
Authors: Achar Rohan , McCormick Benjamin J. , Dworkin Emily , Geramita Emily , Im Annie , Patel Anand Ashwin , Badar Talha , Shallis Rory M. 
Published: December 2023

Background: Hypomethylating agent (HMA) and venetoclax (Ven) frontline therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is astandard of care for patients (pts) deemed to be poor candidates for intensive induction due to age or fitness. However, given its attractive risk-benefit ratio, there is an increasing interest to extend the preference for HMA + Ven to other pts, including those who are fit for intensive therapy but with adverse risk disease. Unfortunately, most pts treated in this fashion will require future therapies for relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease and intensive therapy is given consideration mostly for pts with a path to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT). Little is known about the outcomes of pts who receive intensive induction therapy after use of a frontline less-intensive regimen in the modern era. In this multi-center study, we seek to describe the experience with such a patient population and identify predictors of differential clinical outcomes.

Methods: We conducted a multi-center, retrospective study of pts with AML treated with frontline less-intensive chemotherapy, followed by intensive induction chemotherapy for R/R disease. We first described the baseline characteristics of this cohort. Nominal variables were summarized with frequency and percentage while continuous variables were summarized with median and interquartile range (IQR). Overall response rate (ORR) was defined as complete remission (CR), complete remission with incomplete count recovery, or morphologic leukemia free state. Differences in ORR were analyzed with Fisher's exact test for nominal variables and Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous variables. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine median overall survival (OS) after induction chemotherapy. Log-rank testing and Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine survival differences for nominal and continuous variables, respectively. Statistical significance was determined as p-value &lt;0.05.

Results: A total of 23 pts were included in this study. Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (IQR: 62-71). The majority of pts were male (n=12, 52%), white (n=20, 87%), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 or 1 (n=18, 82%). The majority of pts (61%) at time of frontline therapy had AML arising out of MDS. As expected, the majority of pts had adverse risk ELN cytogenetics (n=16, 70%) with an enrichment for disease harboring TP53 mutation (n=6, 27%) and complex karyotype (n=9, 39%). Fifteen pts (65%) had frontline therapy with azacitidine backbone, 6 pts (26%) with decitabine; some pts received both before intensive therapy. The median number of cycles of frontline therapy was 2 (IQR: 2-5). Median WBC at time of R/R therapy was 1.9 x 10 9/L (IQR: 0.8-6.45), while hemoglobin was 8.4 g/dL (IQR: 7.5-9.45), platelets were 41 x 10 9/L (IQR: 19.5-116.5), and marrow blasts were 25% (IQR: 16.5-30%). The plurality of pts received CPX-351 as intensive R/R therapy (n=9, 39%). Other regimens included 7+3 (n=2, 9%), FLAG-Ida + Ven (n=2, 9%), HiDAC + Mitoxantrone +/- Ven (n=4, 17%) ( Table 1).

ORR after intensive R/R therapy was 27% (n=6), with 23% achieving CR. CPX-351 after HMA + Ven was specifically associated with an ORR of 33% (CR rate 22%). Median OS after initiation was 5.8 months. Thirty- and 60-day mortality was 17% and 26%, respectively. Five patients (23%) proceeded to alloHCT ( Table 1).

Univariate differences in response rate and median survival were analyzed for each of the aforementioned variables as illustrated in Table 1. While none of the covariates reached statistical significance for impacting ORR or OS, ECOG PS trended towards significantly impacting OS ( p=0.074) and the median OS among patients proceeding to alloHCT was numerically doubled (8.0 vs. 4.0 months, p=0.11) ( Figure 1).

Conclusions: Intensive therapy for R/R AML after prior frontline less-intensive therapy was associated with an ORR rate of 27% and median OS of 5.8 months in our cohort. This approach may be an appropriate strategy for a subset of pts, particularly those eligible for alloHCT. The relatively small and heterogeneous nature of this cohort limits strong conclusions regarding efficacy. As the use of frontline HMA + Ven continues to expand, further studies with larger sample size are needed to determine which pts would and would not benefit from intensive induction therapy in the R/R setting.