ABSTRACT
Venetoclax-azacitidine is the standard of treatment for unfit acute myeloid leukemia patients. In the VIALE-A study, treatment was given until progression but there are no data on its optimal duration for responding patients who do not tolerate indefinite therapy. We retrospectively analyzed the outcome of patients who discontinued venetoclax or venetoclax-azacitidine due to poor tolerance. Sixty-two newly diagnosed (ND) AML patients and 22 patients with morphological relapse or refractory AML were included. In the ND cohort (n = 62), 28 patients stopped venetoclax and azacitidine and 34 patients continued azacitidine monotherapy. With a median follow-up of 23 months (IQR, 20-32), median overall survival and treatment-free survival were 44 (IQR, 16-NR) and 16 (IQR, 8-27) months, respectively. Patients who stopped both treatments and those who continued azacitidine monotherapy had the same outcomes. Negative minimal residual disease was associated with a 2-year treatment-free survival of 80%. In the RR cohort (n = 22), median overall survival and treatment-free survival were 19 (IQR, 17-31) and 10 (IQR, 5-NR) months, respectively. Prior number of venetoclax-azacitidine cycles and IDH mutations were associated with increased overall survival. The only factor significantly impacting treatment-free survival was the number of prior cycles. This study suggests that patients who discontinued treatment in remission have favorable outcomes supporting the rationale for prospective controlled trials.
ABSTRACT
CD38-targeting immunotherapy is approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) that are transplant ineligible (TI) and is considered the best standard of care (SOC). To improve current SOC, we evaluated the added value of weekly bortezomib (V) to isatuximab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaRd versus Isa-VRd). This Intergroupe Francophone of Myeloma phase 3 study randomized 270 patients with NDMM that were TI, aged 65-79 years, to IsaRd versus Isa-VRd arms. The primary endpoint was a minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate at 10-5 by next-generation sequencing at 18 months from randomization. Key secondary endpoints included response rates, MRD assessment rates, survival and safety. The 18-month MRD negativity rates at 10-5 were reported in 35 patients (26%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19-34) in IsaRd versus 71 (53%, 95% CI 44-61) in Isa-VRd (odds ratio for MRD negativity 3.16, 95% CI 1.89-5.28, P < 0.0001). The MRD benefit was consistent across subgroups at 10-5 and 10-6, and was already observed at month 12. The proportion of patients with complete response or better at 18 months was higher with Isa-VRd (58% versus 33%; P < 0.0001), as was the proportion of MRD negativity and complete response or better (37% versus 17%; P = 0.0003). At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, no difference was observed for survival times (immature data). The addition of weekly bortezomib did not significantly affect the relative dose intensity of IsaRd. Isa-VRd significantly increased MRD endpoints, including the 18-month negativity rate at 10-5, the primary endpoint, compared with IsaRd. This study proposes Isa-VRd as a new SOC for patients with NDMM that are TI. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04751877 .