Search

DDX41 germline mutations (DDX41MutGL) are the most common genetic predisposition to myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Recent reports suggest that DDX41MutGL myeloid malignancies could be considered as a distinct entity, even if their specific presentation and outcome remain to be defined. We describe here the clinical and biological features of 191 patients with DDX41MutGL AML. Baseline characteristics and outcome of 86 of these patients, treated with intensive chemotherapy in 5 prospective Acute Leukemia French Association/French Innovative Leukemia Organization trials, were compared with those of 1604 patients with DDX41 wild-type (DDX41WT) AML, representing a prevalence of 5%. Patients with DDX41MutGL AML were mostly male (75%), in their seventh decade, and with low leukocyte count (median, 2 × 109/L), low bone marrow blast infiltration (median, 33%), normal cytogenetics (75%), and few additional somatic mutations (median, 2). A second somatic DDX41 mutation (DDX41MutSom) was found in 82% of patients, and clonal architecture inference suggested that it could be the main driver for AML progression. DDX41MutGL patients displayed higher complete remission rates (94% vs 69%; P < .0001) and longer restricted mean overall survival censored at hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) than 2017 European LeukemiaNet intermediate/adverse (Int/Adv) DDX41WT patients (5-year difference in restricted mean survival times, 13.6 months; P < .001). Relapse rates censored at HSCT were lower at 1 year in DDX41MutGL patients (15% vs 44%) but later increased to be similar to Int/Adv DDX41WT patients at 3 years (82% vs 75%). HSCT in first complete remission was associated with prolonged relapse-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.88; P = .02) but not with longer overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-1.68; P = .5).

Tandem duplications (TDs) of the UBTF gene have been recently described as a recurrent alteration in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Here, by screening 1946 newly diagnosed adult AML, we found that UBTF-TDs occur in about 3% of patients aged 18–60 years, in a mutually exclusive pattern with other known AML subtype-defining alterations. The characteristics of 59 adults with UBTF-TD AML included young age (median 37 years), low bone marrow (BM) blast infiltration (median 25%), and high rates of WT1 mutations (61%), FLT3-ITDs (51%) and trisomy 8 (29%). BM morphology frequently demonstrates dysmyelopoiesis albeit modulated by the co-occurrence of FLT3-ITD. UBTF-TD patients have lower complete remission (CR) rates (57% after 1 course and 76% after 2 courses of intensive chemotherapy [ICT]) than UBTF-wild-type patients. In patients enrolled in the ALFA-0702 study (n = 614 patients including 21 with UBTF-TD AML), the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival of UBTF-TD patients were 42.9% (95%CI: 23.4–78.5%) and 57.1% (95%CI: 39.5–82.8%) and did not significantly differ from those of ELN 2022 intermediate/adverse risk patients. Finally, the study of paired diagnosis and relapsed/refractory AML samples suggests that WT1-mutated clones are frequently selected under ICT. This study supports the recognition of UBTF-TD AML as a new AML entity in adults.

Olutasidenib (FT-2102) is a potent, selective, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (mIDH1). Overall, 153 IDH-1 inhibitor naïve patients with mIDH1R132 relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) received olutasidenib monotherapy 150 mg twice daily in the pivotal cohort of this study. Median age (range) was 71 years (32-87) and the median number of prior regimens was 2 (1-7). The rate of complete remission (CR) plus complete remission with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) was 35% (n=51; 95% CI, 27.0-43.0) and the overall response rate was 48% (n=71; 95% CI, 40.0-56.7). Response rates were similar in patients who had and who had not received prior venetoclax. With 55% of patients censored at the time of data cut-off, median duration of CR/CRh was 25.9 months (95% CI, 13.5-NE). Median duration of overall response was 11.7 months (95% CI, 6.9-25.9). Median overall survival was 11.6 months (95% CI, 8.9-15.5). Of 86 patients who were transfusion-dependent at baseline, a 56-day transfusion independence was achieved in 29 (34%), including patients in all response groups. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (≥10%) were febrile neutropenia and anemia (n=31; 20% each), thrombocytopenia (n=25; 16%), and neutropenia (n=20; 13%). Differentiation syndrome adverse events of special interest occurred in 22 (14%) patients, with 14 (9%) grade ≥3 and 1 fatal case reported. Overall, olutasidenib induced durable remissions and transfusion independence with a well-characterized and manageable side-effect profile. The observed efficacy represents a therapeutic advance in this molecularly defined, poor-prognosis patient population with mIDH1 R/R AML. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02719574.

We analyzed 526 consecutive acute myeloid leukemia patients refractory to or relapsing after chemotherapy. 270 patients received intensive salvage chemotherapy (IC), 97 azacitidine (AZA) and 159 best supportive care (BSC). Complete response was obtained in 37/19/0% (

WT1 overexpression is frequently identified in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and has been reported to be a potential marker for monitoring measurable residual disease (MRD). We evaluated the use of postinduction WT1 MRD level as a prognostic factor, as well as the interaction between postinduction WT1 MRD response and the effect of allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) in the first complete remission (CR). In the ALFA-0702 trial, patients with AML, aged 18 to 59, had a prospective quantification of WT1 MRD. The occurrence of a WT1 MRD ratio >2.5% in bone marrow or >0.5% in peripheral blood was defined as MRDhigh, and ratios below these thresholds were defined as MRDlow. The prognostic value of MRD after induction chemotherapy was assessed in 314 patients in first CR by comparing the risk of relapse, the relapse-free survival (RFS), and the overall survival (OS). Interaction between MRD response and the allo-SCT effect was evaluated in patients by comparing the influence of allo-SCT on the outcomes of patients with MRDhigh with those with MRDlow. The results showed that patients with MRDhigh after induction had a higher risk of relapse and a shorter RFS and OS. The MRD response remained of strong prognostic value in the subset of 225 patients with intermediate-/unfavorable-risk AML who were eligible for allo-SCT, because patients with MRDhigh had a significantly higher risk of relapse resulting in worse RFS and OS. The effect of allo-SCT was higher in patients with MRDlow than in those with MRDhigh, but not significantly different. The early WT1 MRD response highlights a population of high-risk patients in need of additional therapy.

Enasidenib; Conventional care Enasidenib; Atenció convencional Enasidenib; Atención convencional This open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT02577406) compared enasidenib, an oral IDH2 (isocitrate dehydrogenase 2) inhibitor, with conventional care regimens (CCRs) in patients aged ≥60 years with late-stage, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) relapsed/refractory (R/R) to 2 or 3 prior AML-directed therapies. Patients were first preselected to a CCR (azacitidine, intermediate-dose cytarabine, low-dose cytarabine, or supportive care) and then randomized (1:1) to enasidenib 100 mg per day or CCR. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall response rate (ORR), hematologic improvement (HI), and transfusion independence (TI). Overall, 319 patients were randomized to enasidenib (n = 158) or CCR (n = 161). The median age was 71 years, median (range) enasidenib exposure was 142 days (3 to 1270), and CCR was 36 days (1 to 1166). One enasidenib (0.6%) and 20 CCR (12%) patients received no randomized treatment, and 30% and 43%, respectively, received subsequent AML-directed therapies during follow-up. The median OS with enasidenib vs CCR was 6.5 vs 6.2 months (HR [hazard ratio], 0.86; P = .23); 1-year survival was 37.5% vs 26.1%. Enasidenib meaningfully improved EFS (median, 4.9 vs 2.6 months with CCR; HR, 0.68; P = .008), TTF (median, 4.9 vs 1.9 months; HR, 0.53; P < .001), ORR (40.5% vs 9.9%; P

The real-world efficacy and safety of gilteritinib was assessed in an ambispective study that included 167 R/R FLT3-mutated AML patients. Among them, 140 received gilteritinib as single agent (cohort B), including 67 previously treated by intensive chemotherapy and midostaurin (cohort C). The main differences in patient characteristics in this study compared to the ADMIRAL trial were ECOG ≥ 2 (83.6% vs. 16.6%), FLT3-TKD mutation (21.0% vs. 8.5%), primary induction failure (15.0% vs. 40.0%) and line of treatment (beyond 2nd in 37.1% vs. 0.0%). The rates of composite complete remission, excluding those that occurred after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), were similar at respectively 25.4% and 27.5% in cohorts B and C. Median overall survival (OS) for these two groups was also similar at respectively 6.4 and 7.8 months. Multivariate analyses for prognostic factors associated with OS identified female gender (HR 1.61), adverse cytogenetic risk (HR 2.52), and allogenic HSCT after gilteritinib (HR 0.13). Although these patients were more heavily pretreated, these real-world data reproduce the results of ADMIRAL and provide new insights into the course of patients previously treated by intensive chemotherapy and midostaurin and beyond the 2nd line of treatment who can benefit from treatment in an outpatient setting.

In a context of therapeutic revolution in older adults with AML, it is becoming increasingly important to select patients for the various treatment options by taking account of short-term efficacy and toxicity as well as long-term survival. Here, the data from three European registries for 1,199 AML patients aged 70 years or older treated with intensive chemotherapy were used to develop a prognostic scoring system. The median follow-up was 50.8 months. In the training set of 636 patients, age, performance status, secondary AML, leukocytosis, and cytogenetics, as well as NPM1 mutations (without FLT3-ITD), were all significantly associated with overall survival, albeit not to the same degree. These factors were used to develop a score that predicts long-term overall survival. Three risk-groups were identified: a lower, intermediate and higher-risk score with predicted 5-year overall survival (OS) probabilities of ≥12% (n = 283, 51%; median OS = 18 months), 3–12% (n = 226, 41%; median OS = 9 months) and n = 47, 8%; median OS = 3 months), respectively. This scoring system was also significantly associated with complete remission, early death and relapse-free survival; performed similarly in the external validation cohort (n = 563) and showed a lower false-positive rate than previously published scores. The European Scoring System ≥70, easy for routine calculation, predicts long-term survival in older AML patients considered for intensive chemotherapy.

Olutasidenib (FT-2102) is a potent, selective, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1). The aims for phase 1 of this phase 1/2 study were to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity of olutasidenib, as monotherapy or in combination with azacitidine, in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia or myelodysplastic syndrome, harbouring mutant IDH1.In this phase 1/2, multicentre, open-label clinical trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with acute myeloid leukaemia or intermediate, high, or very high risk myelodysplastic syndrome harbouring mutant IDH1 at 18 study sites in the USA, Australia, France, and Spain. Other key eligibility criteria included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 with adequate liver and renal function. The primary outcomes were dose-limiting toxicities and the maximum tolerated dose, maximum evaluated dose, and the recommended phase 2 dose of olutasidenib. Olutasidenib was administered orally in doses of 150 mg once daily, 150 mg twice per day, and 300 mg once daily. Azacitidine (75 mg/mPatients were enrolled between Aug 8, 2016, and Nov 14, 2018. 78 patients received olutasidenib as monotherapy (n=32) or in combination with azacitidine (n=46). The median follow-up was 8·3 months (IQR 3·1-13·3) for monotherapy and 10·1 months (4·2-15·3) for combination therapy. 16 (50%) of 32 patients in the monotherapy group and 24 (52%) of 46 patients in the combination therapy group were women. Most patients were White (26 [81%] for monotherapy and 31 [67%] for combination therapy). No dose-limiting toxicities were reported in the dose-escalation cohorts and 150 mg twice per day was declared the recommended phase 2 dose on the basis of safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity. The most common (≥20%) grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events with monotherapy were thrombocytopenia (nine [28%] of 32 patients), febrile neutropenia (seven [22%] of 32), and anaemia (seven [22%] of 32); and with combination therapy were thrombocytopenia (19 [41%] of 46), febrile neutropenia (13 [28%] of 46), neutropenia (13 [28%] of 46), and anaemia (nine [20%] of 46). 11 (34%) of 32 patients in the monotherapy group and nine (20%) of 46 patients in the combination therapy group died (most commonly from disease progression [three (9%) of 32 and four (9%) of 46]). No deaths were considered study-drug related. For patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia, 41% (95% CI 21-64; nine of 22) receiving monotherapy and 46% (27-67; 12 of 26) receiving combination therapy had an overall response. For treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, 25% (1-81; one of four) receiving monotherapy and 77% (46-95; ten of 13) receiving combination therapy had an overall response.Olutasidenib, with or without azacitidine, was well tolerated and showed meaningful clinical activity in patients with IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukaemia. The results of this phase 1 study provide rationale for the continued evaluation of olutasidenib in multiple patient populations with myeloid malignancies.Forma Therapeutics.

We have presented a practical guide developed by a working group of experts in infectious diseases and hematology to summarize the different recommendations issued by the different international groups on antifungal agents used for hematology patients. In addition, a working group of experts in the domains of nephrology, hepatology, and drug interactions have reported their different recommendations when administering antifungal agents, including dose adjustments, monitoring, and management of their side effects. This guide will enable prescribers to have a document available that will allow for better and optimal use of antifungal agents for hematology patients with consideration of the toxicity and interactions adjusted to each indication.

Adults with relapsed or refractory B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (R/R BCP-ALL) have very poor outcome. Blinatumomab as single agent has shown activity in R/R BCP-ALL. We aimed to assess the activity of blinatumomab in concomitant association with intensive chemotherapy. Seventeen patients with R/R BCP-ALL were treated with combination of blinatumomab and VANDA (etoposide, cytarabine, mitoxantrone, dexamethasone and asparaginase) regimen. Complete remission (CR) was achieved in 14/17 patient (82%) and 11/17 (65%) were transplanted. One-year leukaemia-free survival was 58.8% for the whole cohort and 90.9% for transplanted patients. These preliminary data suggest that the VANDA-blinatumomab salvage regimen leads to a very high rate of CR and HSCT in suitable patients.

Classifications of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients rely on morphologic, cytogenetic, and molecular features. Here we have established a novel flow cytometry-based immunophenotypic stratification showing that AML blasts are blocked at specific stages of differentiation where features of normal myelopoiesis are preserved. Six stages of leukemia differentiation-arrest categories based on CD34, CD117, CD13, CD33, MPO, and HLA-DR expression were identified in two independent cohorts of 2087 and 1209 AML patients. Hematopoietic stem cell/multipotent progenitor-like AMLs display low proliferation rate, inv(3) or RUNX1 mutations, and high leukemic stem cell frequency as well as poor outcome, whereas granulocyte–monocyte progenitor-like AMLs have CEBPA mutations, RUNX1-RUNX1T1 or CBFB-MYH11 translocations, lower leukemic stem cell frequency, higher chemosensitivity, and better outcome. NPM1 mutations correlate with most mature stages of leukemia arrest together with TET2 or IDH mutations in granulocyte progenitors-like AML or with DNMT3A mutations in monocyte progenitors-like AML. Overall, we demonstrate that AML is arrested at specific stages of myeloid differentiation (SLA classification) that significantly correlate with AML genetic lesions, clinical presentation, stem cell properties, chemosensitivity, response to therapy, and outcome.

Postremission treatment is crucial to prevent relapse in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). High-dose cytarabine delivered every 12 hours on days 1, 3, and 5 (HDAC-135) is the standard of care for younger adult patients with AML. Although this standard has been unsuccessfully challenged by other treatment regimens, including multiagent chemotherapy, the timing of HDAC administration has attracted little attention. Here, we retrospectively compared the safety, efficacy, and health care resource consumption associated with HDAC-135 and another standard, condensed HDAC-123 regimen, as consolidation treatment in younger AML patients in first complete response. This study included 221 patients (median age, 46.6 years; range, 18-60 years). HDAC-123 and HDAC-135 were used in 92 and 129 patients, respectively. Both regimens were associated with similar rates of relapse-free survival, cumulative incidence of relapse, nonrelapse mortality, and overall survival, including in core binding factor AML subgroup in which levels of minimal residual disease reduction were similar in both schedules. Hematological recovery times regarding neutrophils and platelets were significantly shorter in patients receiving HDAC-123, with an average difference of 3 to 4 days for each consolidation cycle. The total duration of hospitalization for the whole postremission program was shorter with HDAC-123 (32 days; interquartile ratio [IQR], 22.0,36.5) compared with HDAC-135 (41 days; IQR, 30.5, 50.0) (P < .0001). In conclusion, the condensed HDAC-123 regimen induced faster hematological recovery and therefore significantly reduced the length of hospital stay without affecting treatment response or outcome in younger AML patients.

The outcome of acute myeloid leukemia patients aged 70 years or older is poor. Defining the best treatment option remains controversial especially when choosing between intensive chemotherapy and hypomethylating agents. We set up a multicentric European database collecting data of 3 700 newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia patients ≥70 years. The primary objective was to compare overall survival in patients selected for intensive chemotherapy (n = 1199) or hypomethylating agents (n = 1073). With a median follow-up of 49.5 months, the median overall survival was 10.9 (95% CI: 9.7–11.6) and 9.2 months (95% CI: 8.3–10.2) with chemotherapy and hypomethylating agents, respectively. Complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery was 56.1% and 19.7% with chemotherapy and hypomethylating agents, respectively (P

NPM 1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) shows unique features. However, the characteristics of “therapy-related” NPM1-mutated AML (t-NPM1 AML) are poorly understood. We compared the genetics, transcriptional profile, and clinical outcomes of t-NPM1 AML, de novo NPM1-mutated AML (dn-NPM1 AML), and therapy-related AML (t-AML) with wild-type NPM1 (t-AML). Normal karyotype was more frequent in t-NPM1 AML (n = 78/96, 88%) and dn-NPM1 (n = 1986/2394, 88%) than in t-AML (n = 103/390, 28%; P < .001). DNMT3A and TET2 were mutated in 43% and 40% of t-NPM1 AML (n = 107), similar to dn-NPM1 (n = 88, 48% and 30%; P > 0.1), but more frequently than t-AML (n = 162; 14% and 10%; P < 0.001). Often mutated in t-AML, TP53 and PPM1D were wild-type in 97% and 96% of t-NPM1 AML, respectively. t-NPM1 and dn-NPM1 AML were transcriptionally similar, (including HOX genes upregulation). At 62 months of median follow-up, the 3-year overall survival (OS) for t-NPM1 AML (n = 96), dn-NPM1 AML (n = 2394), and t-AML (n = 390) were 54%, 60%, and 31%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, OS was similar for the NPM1-mutated groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.25; P = .45), but better in t-NPM1 AML than in t-AML (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.30-2.68; P < .001). Relapse-free survival was similar between t-NPM1 and dn-NPM1 AML (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.72-1.467; P = .90), but significantly higher in t-NPM1 AML versus t-AML (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.19-2.64; P = .0045). t-NPM1 and dn-NPM1 AML have overlapping features, suggesting that they should be classified as a single disease entity.

Introduction Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations occur in ~20% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients (pts) and are frequently identified in older pts. Pre-clinical data showed that cells with IDH1/2 mutation (mut) were susceptible to Venetoclax (Ven) therapy (Chan et.al., 2015). Clinical studies have demonstrated that pts with IDH1/2mut treated with Ven and azacitidine (Aza) achieved high response rates that were durable, and had longer median overall survival (mOS) (DiNardo et. al., 2020; DiNardo et. al., 2019). Herein, we further evaluated the efficacy and safety of Ven+Aza among treatment-naïve AML pts with IDH1/2 mut unfit for intensive treatment either due to comorbidities and/or age ≥ 75 yrs. Methods Data were pooled from pts enrolled in an ongoing phase 3 study (NCT02993523, data cut-off: 04Jan2020) comparing pts treated with Ven+Aza or placebo (Pbo)+Aza, and a phase 1b study (NCT02203773, data cut-off: 19Jun2019) where pts were treated with Ven+Aza. Pts on Ven+Aza received Ven 400 mg daily orally (days 1-28) and Aza (75 mg/m2; days 1-7/28-day cycle). Disease assessments were performed per modified International Working Group response criteria for AML. DNA was isolated from bone marrow aspirates collected from pts prior to the first dose of study drug and analyzed centrally. Pts with positive test results for IDH1 and 2 [RealTime IDH1 or IDH2 assay (Abbott) for phase 3 study, MyAML panel (Invivoscribe) for phase 1b study] were counted as mutation "detected"; pts with a negative test result were counted as mutation "not detected." Pts without a result either due to an inconclusive test or missing specimen were excluded from the analyses. Results IDH1/2 mut was detected in 79 pts treated with Ven+Aza and 28 pts treated with Pbo+Aza. At baseline (Ven+Aza/Pbo+Aza), median age was 76 (range: 64-90)/78 (62-90) yrs. Cytogenetic risks were intermediate: 79%/68%, and poor:21%/32%. ECOG scores were: 0-1: 56%/68% and 2-3: 44%/32%. 73%/86% had de novo AML, and 27%/14% had secondary AML. IDH1 was detected in 32/11, IDH2 in 49/18, IDH2R140 in 36/15, and IDH2R172 were detected in 13/3 pts, respectively. The median number of treatment cycles received (Ven+Aza/Pbo+Aza) by IDH1/2 pts was 8 (range: 1-37)/2.5 (1-18). Complete response (CR)+CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) in Ven+Aza/Pbo+Aza were 72% (95% CI: 61%-82%)/7% (1%-24%) (Table). Median time to first CR/CRh response was 1.0/2.6 months (mos), and 51%/0% achieved CR+CRh by initiation of cycle (C) 2. Median duration of response (mDoR) was 29.5 [95% CI: 16.7-not reached(NR)]/15.5 (NR-NR) mos and mOS was 24.5 [15.2- NR/6.2 (2.3-12.7) mos. The separation of 95% CIs for mOS indicate superior treatment effect of Ven+Aza (Figure). In pts with IDH1, CR+CRh (Ven+Aza/Pbo+Aza) was 59%/9%. Median time to first CR/CRh response was 2.3/3.1 mos, and 25%/0% achieved CR+CRh by initiation of C2. Median DoR and OS were 21.9 (7.8-29.5)/NR and 17.5 (6.3-32.7)/2.2(1.1-5.6) mos. In pts with IDH2, CR+CRh rates were 80%/6%. Median time to first CR/CRh response was 1.0/2.1 mos and 67%/0% achieved CR+CRh by initiation of C2. Median DoR was NR (16.7-NR)/15.5 (NR-NR), and mOS was NR (17.6-NR)/13.0 (95% CI: 3.8-15.8) mos. In pts with IDH2R140, CR+CRh were 75%/7%. Median time to first CR/CRh response was 1.0/2.1 mos, and 58%/0% achieved CR+CRh by initiation of C2. Median DoR and mOS were NR (17.8-NR)/15.5 (NR-NR) and NR (15.0-NR)/12.7 (1.7-15.8) mos, respectively. Response rates in pts with IDH2R172 were 92%/0%. Median time to first CR/CRh response was 1.0/NR mos, and 92%/0% achieved response by initiation of C2. Median DoR and mOS were 16.7 (7.5-NR)/3.5 (NR-NR) and NR (12.2-NR)/13.7 (10.6-NR) mos. IDH1/2 mut pts achieved higher CR+CRh rates with Ven+Aza treatment as compared to pts with IDH not detected (72%/60%). Median DoR and mOS were 29.5 (16.7-NR)/17.5 (10.6-23.5) and 24.5 (15.2-NR)/12.3 (9.7-14.8) mos, respectively. In pts treated with Ven+Aza, grade 3/4 hematologic adverse events (AEs) among pts with IDH1/2 detected/IDH not detected were similar (81%/74%) and included grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (46%/34%), febrile neutropenia (43%/41%), neutropenia (35%/33%) and anemia (29%/24%). Conclusion Ven+Aza compared to Aza monotherapy resulted in higher response rates, longer DoR, and mOS among treatment-naïve pts with IDH1/2mut ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. The safety profile was acceptable. No unexpected toxicities were noted with Ven+Aza combination. Disclosures Pollyea: Pfizer: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Other; Takeda: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Syros: Consultancy; Syndax: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; 47: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy. Dinardo:Notable Labs: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; ImmuneOnc: Honoraria. Arellano:Gilead Sciences, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hanmi: Research Funding; Cephalon Oncology: Research Funding. Fiedler:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accomodations; Gilead: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; BerGenBio ASA: Research Funding; Servier: Honoraria, Other; Ariad/Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: support in medical writing; Daiichi Sankyo Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accomodations; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: support in medical writing; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accomodations, support in medical writing, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Konopleva:Reata Pharmaceutical Inc.;: Patents & Royalties: patents and royalties with patent US 7,795,305 B2 on CDDO-compounds and combination therapies, licensed to Reata Pharmaceutical; Calithera: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Ablynx: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann La-Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kisoji: Consultancy; Rafael Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rizzieri:Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AROG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acrobiotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mustang: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Smith:Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shinagawa:AbbVie: Research Funding. Lemoli:Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BerGenBio ASA: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dail:Genentech: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Duan:AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or options. Chyla:AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Potluri:AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or stock options. Ridgeway:AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kantarjian:Janssen: Honoraria; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive biotechnologies: Honoraria; Oxford Biomedical: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Research Funding; Delta Fly: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding; Aptitute Health: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BioAscend: Honoraria; Jazz: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding.

International audience; Objectives: The impact of conventional treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) on the nutritional, cognitive, and functional status of elderly patients is seldom studied. This assessment was performed in the context of the LAMSA 2007 trial.Methods: The trial enrolled 424 patients with de novo AML. Among them, 316 benefited from geriatric assessment (GA) including nutritional, cognitive, and functional status and were scored according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and sorror for the prediction of treatment toxicity, morbidity, and mortality. Patients were investigated at diagnosis for three times during follow-up.Results: This study showed that AML and its treatment have no impact on cognitive (P = .554) nor functional status (P = .842 for Activity of Daily Living and P = .087 for Instrumental Activities of Daily Living). The nutritional status improved over time (P = .041). None of these three parameters at baseline, associated or not with ECOG and sorror scores, impacted survivals or toxicities.Conclusions: The cognitive, functional, and nutritional status had no impact in this cohort of fit elderly AML patients without unfavorable cytogenetics. The GA tools used provided no additional information compared with ECOG and sorror scores, to predict toxicity, morbidity, or mortality due to intensive chemotherapy.

We evaluated the outcome of 65 French patients with Extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type (ENKTL) undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) (19 allogeneic and 46 autologous). Fifty-four patients (83%), most of which receiving L asparaginase (L-aspa) containing regimens (81%), achieved complete or partial response at time of HCST. After a median follow-up of 79.9 months, 4-years progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar in both autologous and allogeneic groups (PFS: 34% vs 26%, p=0.12 and OS: 52% vs 53%, p=0.74). Response status at HSCT was the major independent prognostic factor on survival (OS: HR: 4.013 [1.137; 14.16], p=0.031 and PFS: HR: 5.231 [1.625; 16.838], p=0.006). As compared to control patients receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy containing regimens only, upfront HSCT did not improve the outcome of responder patients, including those treated by L-aspa. However, it tends to provide survival benefit for relapsed patients with initial high-risk clinical features who achieved second remission. Whereas the place of HSCT in upfront therapy has still to be clarified, these data confirm that HSCT should be considered for consolidation in selected patients with relapsed ENKTL. Based on a large non Asian ENKTL cohort since the L-aspa era, this study provides some insight into the survival patterns of ENKTL patients with HSCT in the Western hemisphere and may give future direction for the next clinical trial design. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

International audience; In this randomized phase 3 study, the FILO group tested whether the addition of 6 mg/m(2) of gemtuzumab ozogamycin (GO) to standard chemotherapy could improve outcome of younger patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and intermediate-risk cytogenetics. GO arm was prematurely closed after 254 inclusions because of toxicity. A similar complete remission rate was observed in both arms. Neither event-free survival nor overall survival were improved by GO in younger AML patients (

Quizartinib improved outcome compared to chemotherapy in the QuANTUM-R study (median overall survival (OS): 6.2 months for quizartinib vs. 4.7 in the chemotherapy group; hazard ratio 0.76, p = 0.02...

The benefit of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) aged >60 years remains a matter of debate, notably when performed in first complete remission (CR1). To clarify this issue, the French Innovative Leukemia Organization (FILO) performed a 10-year real-world time-dependent analysis. The study enrolled patients between 60 and 70 years of age with AML in CR1 after intensive chemotherapy with intermediate (IR) or unfavorable (UR) risk according to the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2010 classification. The impact of allo-HSCT was analyzed through three models: (1) time-dependent Cox; (2) multistate for dynamic prediction; and (3) super landmark. The study enrolled 369 (73%) IR and 138 (27%) UR patients with AML, 203 of whom received an allo-HSCT. Classical multivariate analysis showed that allo-HSCT significantly improved relapse-free survival (RFS; hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval (CI)], 0.47 [0.35-0.62]; P < .001) and overall survival (OS; HR [95% CI], 0.56 [0.42-0.76]; P < .001), independently of the ELN risk group. With the multistate model, the predicted 5-year probability for IR and UR patients to remain in CR1 without allo-HSCT was 8% and 1%, respectively. Dynamic predictions confirmed that patients without allo-HSCT continue to relapse over time. Finally, the super landmark model showed that allo-HSCT significantly improved RFS (HR [95% CI], 0.47 [0.36-0.62]; P < .001) and OS (HR [95% CI], 0.54 [0.40-0.72]; P < .001). allo-HSCT in CR1 is reported here as significantly improving the outcome of fit older patients with AML. Long-term RFS without allo-HSCT is very low (

Context: Mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) occur in ~3% of patients with MDS and are associated with increased transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). IVO is an oral, potent, targeted inhibitor of the mutant IDH1 (mIDH1) enzyme and is FDA-approved for mIDH1 R/R AML and mIDH1 newly diagnosed AML in patients ≥75 years old or with comorbidities precluding the use of intensive induction chemotherapy. In the first-in-human, phase 1 study of IVO in patients with mIDH1 advanced hematologic malignancies (NCT02074839), 12 patients with R/R MDS, with median age 72.5 years (range 52–78), received IVO 500 mg once daily (QD). All patients received prior MDS treatment. Investigator-assessed ORR (CR + PR + marrow CR, per IWG 2006) was 75% (95% CI 43–95), with median duration of response of 21.4 months (95% CI 2.3–NE). Nine (75%) patients were transfusion-independent for ≥56 days during treatment. No dose-limiting toxicities or adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation were reported among patients with MDS. Based on these encouraging data, the FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation to IVO in mIDH1 MDS; the study was amended to enroll additional patients with mIDH1 R/R MDS. Objective: To evaluate safety, tolerability, clinical activity, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of IVO in patients with mIDH1 R/R MDS. Design: A sub-study of the single-arm, open-label, phase 1 dose escalation and expansion study of IVO in mIDH1 advanced hematologic malignancies, evaluating patients with R/R MDS. Patients must have R/R disease after prior standard therapy; high disease burden based on cytopenia and/or transfusion dependence at baseline; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–2; and be amenable to bone marrow aspirate and/or core biopsy at specified study timepoints. Patients with documented AML are not eligible. IVO 500 mg QD orally on days 1–28 of 28-day cycles. Results: Study is open; enrollment of ~23 patients from the US and France planned. Results not yet available. Conclusions: This sub-study will provide additional insights into safety, tolerability, clinical activity, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of treatment with IVO in patients with mIDH1 R/R MDS. Funding: Agios; Servier.

CPX-351 is a liposomal formulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin approved for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed, therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (MRC-AML). We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of CPX-351 in a real-world setting in 103 patients from 12 French centers, including the evaluation of molecular abnormalities at baseline and minimal residual disease (MRD) in responding patients, compared with a historical data set from Bordeaux-Toulouse DATAML registry. A favorable safety profile was observed, with a low frequency of alopecia (11%) and gastrointestinal toxicity (50%). The overall response rate after induction was 59%, and MRD

International audience; In patients with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treated by intensive chemotherapy (IC), prognostic significance of co-occurring genetic alterations and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are of particular interest with the advent of IDH1/2 mutant inhibitors. We retrospectively analyzed 319 patients with newly diagnosed AML (127 with IDH1, 135 with IDH2R140, and 57 with IDH2R172 mutations) treated with IC in 3 Acute Leukemia French Association prospective trials. In each IDH subgroup, we analyzed the prognostic impact of clinical and genetic covariates, and the role of HSCT. In patients with IDH1 mutations, the presence of NPM1 mutations was the only variable predicting improved overall survival (OS) in multivariate analysis (P< .0001). In IDH2R140-mutated AML, normal karyotype (P = .008) and NPM1 mutations (P = .01) predicted better OS. NPM1 mutations were associated with better disease-free survival (DFS; P = .0009), whereas the presence of DNMT3A mutations was associated with shorter DFS (P = .0006). In IDH2R172-mutated AML, platelet count was the only variable retained in the multivariate model for OS (P = .002). Among nonfavorable European LeukemiaNet 2010-eligible patients, 71 (36%) underwent HSCT in first complete remission (CR1) and had longer OS (P = .03) and DFS (P = .02) than nontransplanted patients. Future clinical trials testing frontline IDH inhibitors combined with IC may consider stratification on NPM1 mutational status, the primary prognostic factor in IDH1- or IDH2R140-mutated AML. HSCT improve OS of nonfavorable IDH1/2-mutated AML and should be fully integrated into the treatment strategy.

A multistage model instructed by a large dataset (knowledge bank [KB] algorithm) has recently been developed to improve outcome predictions and tailor therapeutic decisions, including hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We assessed the performance of the KB in guiding HSCT decisions in first complete remission (CR1) in 656 AML patients younger than 60 years from the ALFA-0702 trial (NCT00932412). KB predictions of overall survival (OS) were superior to those of European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2017 risk stratification (C-index, 68.9 vs 63.0). Among patients reaching CR1, HSCT in CR1, as a time-dependent covariate, was detrimental in those with favorable ELN 2017 risk and those with negative NPM1 minimal residual disease (MRD; interaction tests, P = .01 and P = .02, respectively). Using KB simulations of survival at 5 years in a scenario without HSCT in CR1 (KB score), we identified, in a similar time-dependent analysis, a significant interaction between KB score and HSCT, with HSCT in CR1 being detrimental only in patients with a good prognosis based on KB simulations (KB score ≥40; interaction test, P = .01). We could finally integrate ELN 2017, NPM1 MRD, and KB scores to sort 545 CR1 patients into 278 (51.0%) HSCT candidates and 267 (49.0%) chemotherapy-only candidates. In both time-dependent and 6-month landmark analyses, HSCT significantly improved OS in HSCT candidates, whereas it significantly shortened OS in chemotherapy-only candidates. Integrating KB predictions with ELN 2017 and MRD may thus represent a promising approach to optimize HSCT timing in younger AML patients.

Adult B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP-ALL) with t(4;11)(q21;q23);KMT2A/AFF1 is a poor-prognosis entity. This registry-based study was aimed to analyze outcome of patients with t(4;11) BCP-ALL treated with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) in first complete remission (CR1) between 2000 and 2017, focusing on the impact of measurable residual disease (MRD) at the time of transplant. Among 151 patients (median age, 38) allotransplanted from either HLA-matched siblings or unrelated donors, leukemia-free survival (LFS) and overall survival (OS) at 2 years were 51% and 60%, whereas relapse incidence (RI) and non-relapse mortality (NRM) were 30% and 20%, respectively. These results were comparable to a cohort of contemporary patients with diploid normal karyotype (NK) BCP-ALL with equivalent inclusion criteria (n = 567). Among patients with evaluable MRD pre-alloHSCT, a negative status was the strongest beneficial factor influencing LFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.2, p < 0.001), OS (HR = 0.14, p < 0.001), RI (HR = 0.23, p = 0.001), and NRM (HR = 0.16, p = 0.002), with a similar outcome to MRD-negative NK BCP-ALL patients. In contrast, among patients with detectable pretransplant MRD, outcome in t(4;11) BCP-ALL was inferior to NK BCP-ALL (LFS: 27% vs. 50%, p = 0.02). These results support indication of alloHSCT in CR1 for t(4;11) BCP-ALL patients, provided a negative MRD status is achieved. Conversely, pre-alloHSCT additional therapy is warranted in MRD-positive patients.

Background: Results of the phase III QUAZAR trial suggest that post-remission treatment with an oral form (CC-486) of azacitidine (AZA) can prolong CR duration and overall survival(OS) in AML patients reaching at least PR with intensive chemotherapy (IC) (Wei et al, ASH 2019). Maintenance treatment with subcutaneous (SC) AZA was recently shown to improve DFS in elderly AML (Huls et al, Blood 2019, a study that also included 10% MDS). We report very long term results of a study evaluating SC AZA as post-remission treatment in patients with AML post-MDS or high-risk MDS (HR-MDS) who achieved at least PR after IC, a population known to have short responses with IC. Methods: Inclusion criteria were (1) HR-MDS according to IPSS, or AML after a documented phase of MDS(2) who entered CR, CRi or PR after IC with anthracycline and AraC within 28 days of inclusion (3) ECOG Results: From July 2006 to June 2009, 51 pts (M:31/F:20) were included. The 46 evaluable pts had achieved CR (n=28), CRi (n=11), and PR (n=7) before study entry. Median age was 66y (range 55-78). Diagnosis at IC onset was MDS (n=13) and AML (n=33), IPSS cytogenetics was normal (n= 28), intermediate (n=10), high (n= 6), and failed (n=2). Median time from diagnosis of MDS to IC was 8 months (range 0.5-101). Median number of AZA maintenance cycles was 7.5 (1-76) in CR pts (>23 cycles in 5 of them) and 4.5 (1-24) in CRi or PR pts (> 23 cycles in 1). Two patients were allografted and censored at allo SCT. Median follow-up was 16.5 months As of May 2020 (cut off date of analysis) median DFS and OS from response were 6.9 m and 16.9 m, respectively (figure). In CR patients, median and 18 months OS were 18.9 months and 58%, versus 12.8 months and 50% in CRi-PR patients (p=0.33) All non allografted patients eventually relapsed. 7 had a response duration >18 months (6 CR patients: 22, 23, 25, 36, 40, and 84 months; 1 CRi patient: 24 months) OS from inclusion was >3 years in 7 patients (CR pts: 150, 126,74, 51, 50,40 months; CRi pt:58 months), in addition to the 2 allografted pts who remained alive in CR at 156+ and 159+ months No baseline factor including cytogenetics, diagnosis at IC onset (MDS vs AML), % bone marrow blasts, age or time from MDS diagnosis to treatment, significantly predicted DFS or OS. AZA dosing in CR patients was escalated in 9 pts to 75mg/m2/d due to good tolerance but had to be reduced in 6 pts, due to GI toxicity (n=1) and cytopenias (n=5). During SC AZA maintenance, 2/28 CR pts developed febrile neutropenia, compared to 4/18 pts in CRi or PR (including 1 fatal case). In the 22 AML post MDS pts who reached CR, DFS and OS were similar to those observed in 46 AML post AML pts included in a previous ALFA study where pts in CR after IC received DNR/IDA-AraC post-remission therapy (Gardin, Blood 2007). Conclusion: In the very long term analysis of this trial in AML post MDS and HR-MDS treated with induction intensive chemotherapy, post-remission therapy with SC AZA alone was associated with a median DFS and OS of 6.9 and 16.9 months, respectively, with some prolonged response. Results appeared similar to those we had reported with intensive consolidation chemotherapy, but using an ambulatory treatment with limited myelosuppression. Figure Disclosures Braun: Daiichy-Sankyo: Honoraria; Servier: Research Funding. Bouabdallah:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ades:Celgene/BMS: Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding. Fenaux:Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Data on outcome in older (≥70 years) patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia after treatment with arsenic trioxide (ATO) compared with standard chemotherapy (CTX) is scarce. We evaluated 433 patients (median age, 73.4 years) treated either with ATO+ all-trans retinoic acid (ATO/ATRA; n = 26), CTX/ATRA + ATO during consolidation (CTX/ATRA/ATO; n = 148), or with CTX/ATRA (n = 259). Median follow-up for overall survival (OS) was 4.8 years. Complete remissions (CR) were achieved in 92% with ATO/ATRA and 82% with CTX/ATRA; induction death rates were 8% and 18%, respectively. For analysis of postremission outcomes we combined the ATO/ATRA and CTX/ATRA/ATO groups (ATO/ATRA ± CTX). Cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) was significantly lower after ATO/ATRA ± CTX compared with CTX/ATRA (P P = 0.20). High (>10 × 109/l) white blood cell (WBC) counts at diagnosis were associated with higher CIR (P P = 0.48). ATO, when added to ATRA or CTX/ATRA is feasible and effective in elderly patients for remission induction and consolidation, particularly in patients with high WBC at diagnosis.

In standard-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia, recent results have shown that all-trans retinoic acid plus arsenic trioxide combinations are at least as effective as classical all-trans retinoic acid plus anthracycline-based chemotherapy while being less myelosuppressive. However, the role of frontline arsenic trioxide is less clear in higher-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia, and access to arsenic remains limited for front-line treatment of standard-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia in many countries. In this randomized trial, we compared arsenic, all-trans retinoic acid and the "classical" cytarabine for consolidation treatment (after all-trans retinoic acid and chemotherapy induction treatment) in standard-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia, and evaluated the addition of arsenic during consolidation in higher-risk disease. Patients with newly diagnosed acute promyelocytic leukemia with a white blood cell count 9 /L, after an induction treatment consisting of all-trans retinoic acid plus idarubicin and cytarabine, received consolidation chemotherapy with idarubicin and cytarabine, arsenic or all-trans retinoic acid. Patients with a white blood cell count >10x10 9 /L received consolidation chemotherapy with or without arsenic. Overall, 795 patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia were enrolled in this trial. Among those with standard-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia (n=581), the 5-year event-free survival rates from randomization were 88.7%, 95.7% and 85.4% in the cytarabine, arsenic and all-trans retinoic acid consolidation groups, respectively (P=0.0067), and the 5-year cumulative incidences of relapse were was 5.5%, 0% and 8.2%. (P=0.001). Among those with higher-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia (n=214), the 5-year event-free survival rates were 85.5% and 92.1% (P=0.38) in the chemotherapy and chemotherapy plus arsenic groups, respectively, and the corresponding 5-year cumulative incidences of relapse were 4.6% and 3.5% (P=0.99). Given the prolonged myelosuppression that occurred in the chemotherapy plus arsenic arm, a protocol amendment excluded cytarabine during consolidation cycles in the chemotherapy plus arsenic group, resulting in no increase in relapse. Our results therefore advocate systematic introduction of arsenic in the first-line treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia, but probably not concomitantly with intensive chemotherapy, a situation in which we found myelosuppression to be significant. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00378365).

Refractory/early relapsed (Ref/eRel) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in patients ≥60 years old is the most important unmet medical need in the salvage setting, where outcomes are exceptionally poor and no standard of care exists.[1][1] Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer quinolone derivative

Background: Olutasidenib is a potent, selective, oral, small molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (mIDH1). Olutasidenib has previously shown clinical activity in high-risk AML patients (pts) in a Phase 1 clinical trial (Watts, Blood 2019). The planned interim analysis of an ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial (NCT02719574) in R/R mIDH1 AML pts receiving single-agent olutasidenib 150 mg twice-daily showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 46%, including 33% of pts with CR/CRh (de Botton et al., ASCO/EHA 2021). Here we present data analysis on the mutational characteristics of these pts and the relationship between mutations and clinical response. Methods: The Efficacy Evaluable (EE) set comprised mIDH1R132X pts whose first dose was ≥180 days before the data cut-off (18-JUN-20). The primary endpoint was CR/CRh (complete remission [CR] according to modified IWG 2003 criteria plus CR with partial hematologic recovery [CRh]) response rate. CRh was defined as bone marrow blasts 0.5×10 9/L, and platelet count >50×10 9/L. ORR, a secondary endpoint, comprised CR+CRh+CR with incomplete recovery (CRi) + morphologic leukemia-free state (MLFS) + partial remission (PR). IDH1 mutation subtypes were determined by central analysis, co-mutations were reported by investigators. Baseline characteristics and mutation subtypes were tabulated for the safety population and analysis of response rate by mutation type was performed on the EE set. Results: There were 153 R/R AML pts treated with olutasidenib 150 mg BID (safety set). Of those, 123 were in the efficacy evaluable (EE) set (centrally confirmed IDH1R132 mutation and received first dose at least 180 days prior to the data cut off). For the safety population, cytogenetic risk classification was favorable in 6 (4%) pts, intermediate in 109 (71%) pts, and poor in 25 (16%) pts (unknown, 13 [8%] pts). Eighty-five (56%) pts had IDH1R132C mutation subtype, followed by IDH1R132H (n=35 [23%]), IDH1R132G (n=12 [8%]), IDH1R132S (n=11 [7%]), and IDH1R132L (n=4 [3%]). Ninety-four (61%) pts had 1-3 co-mutations reported by the investigator at baseline, with 4-7 co-mutations in 20 (13%) pts, none in 6 (4%) pts, and not done/unknown in 33 (22%) pts. The most common co-mutations at baseline were: NPM1 (n=40 [26%]), DNMT3A (n=36 [24%]), and ASXL1 (n=21 [14%]. Receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) mutations were reported in 32 (21%) pts (FLT3, n=18 [12%]; NRAS, n=10 [7%]; KRAS, n=3 [2%]; PTPN11, n=3 [2%]; KIT, n=2 [1%]; NF1, n=2 [1%]), with multiple mutations reported in some pts. For the EE population, responses were achieved in all IDH1R132 mutation subtypes, with ORR and CR/CRh response rates ranging from 27%-54% and 17%-50%, respectively (Table 1). The CR/CRh response rate was lower for pts with IDH1R132H mutations; notably, these pts tended to have a higher percentage of co-mutations, particularly mutations in NPM1 and RTK genes, including FLT3. For EE pts with available co-mutation data (n=96), the mean (SD) number of co-mutations was lower (p Conclusions: Responses were observed across IDH1R132 mutation subtypes, with a relatively lower CR/CRh response rate for pts with a R132H mutation as compared to other subtypes. Pts with a best response of CR/CRh had fewer co-mutations than pts who did not achieve CR/CRh. While the ORR was not significantly reduced for pts with RTK mutations, these pts had a lower CR/CRh response rate compared to pts without any RTK mutations. Additional genetic analyses using ddPCR for IDH1 mutations and NGS on a targeted panel of genes at baseline, best response, and end of study will be presented to further explore primary and secondary resistance mechanisms. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures De Botton: Celgene, Agios, Forma Therapeutics, Astella, Daiichi Sankyo, Syros, Abbvie, Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene, Agios, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Syros, Abbvie, Bayer, Janssen, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier: Consultancy; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Agios, Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding. Yee: Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; F. Hoffmann La Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TaiHo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shattuck Labs: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Paladin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Otsuka: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Recher: BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MaatPharma: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Wei: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Macrogenics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Montesinos: Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Tolero Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Stemline/Menarini: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Pigneux: Amgen: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Braun: Servier: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Curti: Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Esteve: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Grove: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jonas: 47, AbbVie, Accelerated Medical Diagnostics, Amgen, AROG, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Forma, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GlycoMimetics, Hanmi, Immune-Onc, Incyte, Jazz, Loxo Oncology, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Sigma Tau, Treadwell: Research Funding; AbbVie, BMS, Genentech, GlycoMimetics, Jazz, Pfizer, Takeda, Treadwell: Consultancy; AbbVie: Other: Travel reimbursement. Khwaja: Pfizer, Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis, Jazz: Speakers Bureau. Blum: Forma Therapeutics, Xencor; Celyad: Research Funding; Amerisource Bergen; Abbvie, Syndax: Honoraria. Hiwase: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jurcic: AbbVie, BMS/Celgene, Novartis: Consultancy; AbbVie, Arog Pharmaceuticals, Astellas, BMS/Celgene, Forma Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, PTC Therapeutics, Syros Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Watts: Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Aptevo Therapeutices: Research Funding. Xin: Forma Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment. Sedkov: Forma Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Guichard: Forma Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sweeney: Forma Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Cortes: Sun Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Astellas, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, BioPath Holdings, Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bio-Path Holdings, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fenaux: Syros Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; JAZZ: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background: The WHO 2016 classification identifies myeloid malignancies with germline predisposition as a distinct subgroup (Arber DA et al., Blood 2016). We and other reported mutations of the DEAD-box RNA helicase 41 gene (g DDX41m) as the most common predisposition to MDS/AML (Sébert et al., Blood 2019). Relatively good outcomes have been suggested in small cohorts receiving heterogeneous treatment, but the prognostic significance of g DDX41m in AML patients (pts) treated with intensive chemotherapy (IC) has never been reported. Here, we analyzed the prognostic impact of g DDX41m in a large cohort of newly diagnosed AML pts treated with IC in 5 prospective ALFA (Acute Leukemia French Association) and FILO (French Innovative Leukemia Organization) trials. Methods: We retrospectively screened 1690 AML pts (aged 18-85y) treated in ALFA0701 (EudraCT 2007-002933-36), ALFA0702 (NCT00932412), ALFA1200 (NCT01966497), ALFA1401 (NCT02473146) and LAM-SA (NCT00590837) clinical trials for DDX41 mutations using High Throuput Sequencing. DDX41 variants with a variant allele frequency (VAF) >40% were interpreted as causal if they were pathogenic or likely pathogenic by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines. The concurrence of a somatic DDX41 mutation was also considered as a strong evidence for the causality. Correlation between g DDX41m and covariates was realized using point biserial correlation and Fisher test for continuous and dichotomic variables, respectively. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) was considered as a time-depending variable, and all outcome analyses were stratified on the clinical trial. Results: We identified 86 unrelated pts with DDX41-related AML representing 5% of the whole cohort; 66 (77%) of them had additional somatic DDX41 mutations. Most common germline variants were p.D140fs (21%), p.M1? (8%), p.L283fs (7%) and p.K331del (5%); p.R525H and p.G530D/C/S accounted for 80% and 10% of all somatic mutations respectively. Compared to wild-type pts, DDX41-related AML were significantly older (65.5 vs 64y, p=0.036), with male predominance (74 vs 54%, p=0.002), had higher rates of normal karyotypes (77 vs 57%, p=0.006), lower WBC (2.0 vs 7.9 G/L, p After one induction course, CR/CRp was achieved in 81 (94%) DDX41-related AML compared to 1164 (73%) in DDX41-wt pts. In a multivariate analysis including WBC, ELN-2017 classification and clinical trial, presence of a g DDX41m was associated with significant higher CR/CRp achievement (OR, 5.39 [95% CI, 2.33-15.67]; p=0.0004) (Figure 1B). After a median follow-up of 47.8 months, DDX41-related AML had a median OS of 39.7 (IQR, 19.4-66.4) months compared to 29.1 (IQR,10-not reached [NR]) months in DDX41wt (p=0.045). However, the prognostic impact on OS of g DDX41m was not independent of WBC and ELN-2017 classification (p=0.5). Relapse rates in DDX41-related pts were lower at 1-year (11 vs 30%), but then increased to join the relapse rates of DDX41-wt pts at 3 years (50 vs 50%, Figure 1C). Finally, 35 DDX41-related and 288 non-favorable DDX41-wt pts received an HSCT in first CR. HSCT was associated with a prolonged OS in the non-favorable DDX41-wt cohort (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.49-0.76]; p Conclusion: This is the first study evaluating the prognostic impact of g DDX41m in a large cohort of AML pts prospectively treated with IC. DDX41-related AMLs represented a rare specific entity and were associated with a higher response rate, prolonged time to relapse without independent OS advantage compared to DDX41-wt AML. These results suggest that consolidation/maintenance strategy might be adapted in these pts. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lambert: ASTELLAS: Consultancy; CELGENE/BMS: Consultancy. de Botton: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pierre Fabre: Other; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Recher: Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MaatPharma: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Pigneux: Amgen: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dombret: Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; BMS-Celgene: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria. Delabesse: Astellas: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Sebert: Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy.

Background: Achieving a first complete remission (CR1) is the primary goal in the treatment of AML and is an important prognostic factor for transplantation outcome in general and even more so for autologous transplantation (AutoSCT). However, there are no data for AutoSCT indicating whether the number of chemotherapy courses (1 vs 2) needed to achieve CR1 is of prognostic significance for transplantation outcome. Methods: Using the EBMT/ALWP registry, we compared transplantation outcomes of adult patients (pts) aged ≥18 years with de novo AML that underwent a peripheral blood AutoSCT in 2000-2019 in CR1 achieved following one vs two chemotherapy courses. The primary outcome was the Leukemia Free Survival (LFS). Multivariate analysis (MVA) adjusting for differences between the groups and knowns factors were performed using Cox's proportional- hazards regression model for outcomes. Results: 1825 pts were included: 1532 (84%) with one and 293 (16%) with two induction chemotherapies courses. Time from diagnosis to AutoSCT was 4.7 (3.9-5.8) vs 5.7 (4.7-7.1) months, respectively (p 90 was higher in pts receiving 1 vs 2 inductions, 71% and 58% of pts, respectively (p Day 30 neutrophil engraftment incidence was 96% and 96.5%. Five -year non-relapse mortality (NRM) was 6.2% vs 6.0% for pts achieving CR1 with 2 vs 1 chemotherapy courses, respectively, and did not differ significantly (HR=1.31 (95% CI: 0.81-2.10), p=0.27). Five -year relapse incidence (RI) was higher :67.2% vs 52.3%, (HR=1.46 (95% CI: 1.25-1.72), p Conclusions: The five -year RI was higher and transplantation outcomes significantly inferior in pts with AML undergoing AutoSCT but who received two lines of chemotherapy to achieve CR1. Such pts may benefit from additional novel therapies in the conditioning or post-AutoSCT or be considered for allogeneic transplantation in an attempt to reduce their high RI and improve outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Labopin: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Blaise: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Huynh: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Mohty: Takeda: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding. Pigneux: Amgen: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (allo-HCT) has proved its efficiency in reducing Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) recurrence, although it was associated with high rates of complications especially in older patients. The worldwide number of allo-HCT has increased within 35 years, from 10.000 transplantations before 1985 to over a million in 2012. The decision to perform transplantation depends on the estimated risk-benefit ratio. High-risk prognostic factors include cytogenetics, age at diagnosis, presence of comorbidities and the response to treatment. By using combination of risk factors, international recommendations have been published to harmonize AML care and maximize the benefit of using allo-HCT. The principal aim of this study is to describe real life AML care management in all consecutive patients diagnosed and registered on 3 regional cancer registries in France, to analyze their outcome after different therapeutic strategies, following or not the international recommendations. Method This retrospective study included all AML patients diagnosed between January 2012 and December 2016 reported to the French population data-based of regional cancer registries specialized in hematological malignancies. Allo-HCT data were extracted from the Société Française de Greffe de Moelle et de Thérapie Cellulaire (SFGM-TC) registry. Two groups of patients were defined according to the treatment received: i) group 1, patients who have received the best recommended care including allo-HCT considering HLA compatibility and best donor choice or best conventional treatment according to therapeutic guidelines based on individuals and clinical characteristics from The American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation guidance; ii) group 2, patients who received a treatment outside the recommendations. To study the impact of therapeutic decision on overall survival, a case-control study was performed using a one for one matching between group 1 and group 2. An exact matching on individual and disease characteristics (cytogenetic risk, Charlson score class, age group at diagnosis, subtype AML and response to treatment) allowed to pair-match patients following or not the international recommendations for therapeutic strategy. Net survival was estimated until five-year using non-parametric Pohar-Perme estimator (survival distribution compared using Grafféo test). Results A total of 1039 AML patients diagnosed from 2012 to 2016 were identified, 449 (43 %) received a curative treatment and 540 patients a non-curative treatment (hypomethylating agents, low dose of cytarabine or other palliative treatment, best supportive care combined to no effective treatment). Based on available clinical data, 430 patients were included in the study. Group 1 included 296 patients (68%), 167 males and 129 females with 54 receiving allo-HCT (32 geno-identical and 22 unrelated). Group 2 included 134 patients (31%), 72 males and 62 females with 94 receiving allo-HCT (14 geno-identical, 50 unrelated and 30 mismatched). In patients for whom allo-HCT represented the best option according to the recommendations (Figure B, n = 44), a very significant lower survival was observed in patients who did not receive allo-HCT when they were compared to patients who received allo-HCT, with a 5 year-overall survival probability of 7 % and 50 % respectively (p= 0.019). In patients for whom allo-HCT was not recommended (Figure A, n = 42), we did not observe any significant difference of survival between patients transplanted or not. Conclusion This analysis shows the importance of allo-HCT decision in AML patients, especially when following international guidelines. Although individual risks factors have been previously studied, our analysis sums up theses factors and allow to understand the importance of integrating allo-HCT in the therapeutic strategy of AML and to re-evaluate current practices and its impact on patient outcome. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Pigneux: Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Forcade: Novartis: Other: travel grant. Mohty: Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria. Dulery: Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; Gilead: Other: Travel support and registration fees for scientific meetings .

The outcome of AML patients (pts) ≥ 70 years is poor. Defining the best treatment option remains controversial especially when choosing between intensive chemotherapy (IC) and hypomethylating agents (HMAs). We set up a multicentric European database collecting data of AML pts ≥ 70 y. The primary objective was to compare overall survival in pts selected for IC or HMAs. Individual pt data were collected from 3 European AML registries (DATAML, SAL and PETHEMA). All pts ≥70 y newly diagnosed between 01/01/2007 and 06/30/2018 were included. Variables were age, sex, diagnosis date, AML status, WBC, BM blasts %, cytogenetic risk, NPM1, FLT3-ITD mutations, first-line therapy, response, allo-SCT in first complete remission (CR), date of relapse and/or death. First-line treatments included IC, a semi-intensive regimen (fludarabine, cytarabine, filgrastim), HMAs, low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) or supportive care (SC). 3 700 AML pts ≥ 70y were identified. Pts treated with semi-intensive chemotherapy (n=464), LDAC (n=127) or SC (n=837) were not included in this analysis. Thus, the study population included 1 199 IC pts and 1 073 HMA pts. The median follow-up was 49.5 months. In the HMA group, pts were older, had lower WBC count and BM blast %, and they more frequently had ECOG > 1, secondary AML (sAML) and adverse-risk cytogenetics (CG) compared to the IC group. NPM1 and FLT3-ITD mutations were more frequent in the IC group. IC regimens were daunorubicin-AraC (n=432, 36.0%), idarubicin-AraC (n=381, 31.8%) or ida-AraC-CCNU (n=214, 17.8%). AlloSCT was performed in 70 IC pts (5.8%) and only in 7 HMA pts (0.7%) (P CR/CRi was achieved in 673 (56.1%) and 211 (19.7%) pts in the IC and HMA groups (P 1, adverse-risk CG and WBC >30 giga/L were significantly associated with a lower response rate whereas NPM1 mutation was significantly associated with a higher response rate. HMA treatment was associated with a lower response rate than IC (OR, 0.25; 95%CI : 0.20-0.31 ; P Day-60 death occurred in 247 (20.6%) and 194 (18.1%) pts in the IC and HMA groups (P=0.129). MV analysis showed that age ≥ 75 years, ECOG > 1, adverse-risk CG and WBC > 30 giga/L were significantly associated with a higher d60 death rate. HMA treatment was associated with a lower d60 death rate than IC (OR, 0.69; 95%CI : 0.54-0.88 ; P=0.003). The median OS was 10.9 (95%CI: 9.7-11.6) and 9.2 months (95%CI: 8.3-10.2) in the IC and HMA groups. OS at 1, 3 and 5 y was 46.0 (95%CI: 43.0-48.9) vs. 40.6% (95%CI: 37.6-43.7), 20.8 (95%CI: 18.3-23.4) vs. 8.3% (95%CI: 6.5-10.4) and 12.4 (95%CI: 10.2-14.9) vs 2.8% (95%CI: 1.7-4.4) in the IC and HMA groups. In MV analysis, ECOG > 1, adverse-risk CG, WBC > 30 giga/liter and sAML were significantly associated with a poorer OS. The treatment effect on OS was time-dependent (Fig 1A). To account for the non-proportionality of risks, we used a Royston and Parmar model, which took into account the interactions between time and treatment effect and allowed graphical representation of the adjusted risk of death at all times during follow-up. This model showed that HMA pts had a significantly lower risk of death before 1.5 months of follow-up ; there was no significant difference between both groups between 1.5 and 4.0 months, and OS was significantly better with IC from 4.0 months of follow-up (Fig 1B). There was no significant interaction between treatment (HMAs vs. IC) and all confounding factors (in particular age, performance status or CG risk). We also used the propensity score method. A MV logistic regression model was generated to estimate for each pt a propensity score to receive HMAs or IC. The performance of the model was estimated with the c 2-Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic (P-value= 0.169) and the C-statistic (0.82, 95%CI: 0.81-0.84). The mean propensity score was 0.320 (±0.232) in IC (N=1199) and 0.642 (±0.234) in HMA (N=1073). Based on propensity score, 532 subjects with IC were matched with 532 subjects with HMAs. The mean propensity score was the same in IC and HMA (0.491 ± 0.219) in the matched sample. The results of HMAs vs. IC comparisons on response, early mortality and overall survival (Fig 1C-D) in this subgroup of propensity score-matched pts were similar to those of the MV analysis. With a fairly long median follow-up and a large number of pts, this study shows that IC remains the treatment strategy that offers better chances for prolonged survival compared with HMAs even in AML pts ≥ 70y. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Recher: Astellas: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MaatPharma: Research Funding. Bertoli: Astellas: Consultancy; BMS Celgene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Dumas: Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; BMS Celgene: Consultancy. Tavitian: Novartis: Consultancy. Platzbecker: AbbVie: Honoraria; Geron: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Müller-Tidow: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Baldus: Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria. de la Fuente: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Delabesse: Novartis: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy. Pigneux: Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Montesinos: Stemline/Menarini: Consultancy; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Tolero Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.