Azacitidine-venetoclax versus azacitidine salvage treatment for primary induction failure or first relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia patients.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of venetoclax-azacitidine (VEN-AZA) with AZA in the real-life for patients with first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia (R/R AML). METHODS: We retrospectively analysed R/R AML patients treated with VEN-AZA at the Institut Paoli Calmettes between September 2020 and February 2022. We compared them to a historical cohort of patients treated with AZA between 2010 and 2021. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients treated with VEN-AZA were compared with 140 patients treated with AZA. There were more favourable cytogenetics (25.7% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.01) and less FLT3-ITD mutated AML (8.8% vs. 25.5%; p = .049) in the VEN-AZA group. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 7.4% and the overall 90-day mortality was 20%, with no difference between the groups. The complete remission rate was 48.6% in the VEN-AZA group versus 15% (p < .0001). The composite complete response rate was 65.7% in the VEN-AZA group versus 23.6% (p < .0001). OS was 12.8 months in the VEN-AZA group versus 7.3 months (p = 0.059). Patients with primary refractory AML, poor-risk cytogenetics, prior hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) and FLT3-ITD mutated AML had lower response and survival rates. CONCLUSION: VEN-AZA was associated with a better response rate and a longer survival than AZA monotherapy in AML patients who relapsed after or were refractory to intensive chemotherapy.