Abstract
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive hematological disease that mainly affects elderly patients. Following the randomized VIALE-A trial, current standard treatment in patients who are not candidates for intensive chemotherapy consists of the combination of venetoclax (VEN), a selective inhibitor of the anti-apoptotic protein BCL-2, with azacitidine (AZA) or decitabine (DEC). We performed a systematic review to critically assess the growing existing evidence regarding the effectiveness of the VEN-based combinations in unfit adult patients with newly diagnosed AML in the real-world setting. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of published manuscripts and conference abstracts (European Hematology Association and American Society of Hematology) was conducted (updated March 2024). Primary outcomes were composite complete remission (CRc) and median overall survival (mOS). A total of 73 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria, with a median age of 73 years old. The weighted mean mOS was 10.3 months among 7 138 patients, significantly lower than expected according to the VIALE-A trial (14.7 months), while the weighted mean CRc rate was 58.2% among 5 831 patients, slightly lower to that reported in the VIALE-A (66.4%). Early death rates at 30 and 60 days were 5% and 13%, respectively. The weighted mean percentage of subsequent allogeneic transplant was 15.4%. In conclusion, breakthrough mOS reported in the VIALE-A trial using VEN-AZA was not well reproduced in real world for unfit newly diagnosed AML patients, while CRc rates were more consistent. Strategies to optimize patient selection, dosing regimens, and supportive care are crucial to improve outcomes in real-world.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive hematological disease that mainly affects elderly patients (median age of 68 years at AML diagnosis) [1]. In patients who are not candidates for intensive chemotherapy (due to very advanced age or associated comorbidities), the prognosis is very poor, with a median survival between 8–10 months using hypomethylating agents (HMAs) alone [2, 3, 4], 4–5 months using low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) based regimens [5], and 1–2 months with best supportive care (BSC) only [6]. Current standard for “unfit” AML patients consists of the combination of venetoclax (VEN), a selective inhibitor of the anti-apoptotic protein BCL-2, and HMAs (such as azacitidine [AZA] or decitabine [DEC]). In the phase 3 randomized VIALE-A trial, the VEN + AZA combination (28 days VEN plus 7 days AZA) showed better initial complete remission (CR) and complete remission with incomplete recovery (CRi) [i.e., composite CR (CRc)] compared to AZA monotherapy (66.4% vs 28.3%) [7]. Despite higher VEN associated toxicity due to myelosuppression, the VIALE-A showed significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) in the VEN-AZA arm (14.1 months vs. 9.6 months, p < 0.001). The OS benefit in the VEN-AZA arm was driven by increased CRc rate and a prolonged duration of remission (DoR) (median 17.8 months vs. 13.9 months), and higher undetectable measurable residual disease (MRD) rate (23.4% vs 7.8%). Thus, this regimen has been adopted as the new standard of care for unfit AML patients. It should be noted that the randomized VIALE-C trial, exploring the combination of LDAC plus VEN, showed increased CRc rates compared to LDAC monotherapy but failed to prove an OS benefit (7.2 months vs 4.1 months, p = 0.11) perhaps due to differences in inclusion criteria compared to VIALE-A, such as prior HMA exposure [8].
Although VEN-based regimens represent a step forward for the treatment of unfit AML patients, their management remains challenging in routine practice due to several factors: 1) the greater toxicity of the VEN combinations compared to HMA monotherapy in frail patients; 2) the strict protocol management imposed in a clinical trial is not always offered in the daily practice; and 3) the rigorous selection criteria of the VIALE-A trial cohort could lead to a difference in the patient profile treated with VEN-AZA in the real world, which may result in treatment toxicities and safety issues that are not as frequent in the trial. All these factors could influence the extrapolation of the VIALE trials results to a real-world hard-to-treat population. Furthermore, as VEN-AZA has become the control arm for randomized phase 3 trials in these patients, it is necessary to investigate how the new therapeutic standard for unfit AML performs in non-selected populations.
The aim of this systematic review is to analyze and summarize the growing existing evidence regarding the effectiveness of the VEN-based combinations in unfit adult patients with newly diagnosed AML in the real-world setting.
Material and methods
Search methodology
Following the PRISMA guidelines, two independent reviewers (PM and ASA) conducted the systematic search. The following databases were searched without restrictions: EMBASE, PubMed, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Cochrane Central Register and the Web of Science. In addition, the references of relevant studies and reviews were hand-searched. Available conference abstracts from the European Hematology Association (EHA), and the American Society of Hematology (ASH) were also reviewed (at HemaSphere and Blood supplements, respectively). Similar keywords were used in distinct databases: venetoclax, and “AML” or “Acute Myeloid Leukemia”. The literature search was updated on March 1st, 2024. Both authors conducted study selection independently. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer (RRV) decided. We screened the title and abstracts to exclude duplicate articles and read the full text and/or abstract of the remaining articles to assess their eligibility according to the selection criteria listed below.
Selection criteria
Only articles or abstracts written in English were considered. We screened all prospective or retrospective observational real-world studies including unselected newly diagnosed unfit AML patients receiving frontline with doublets of VEN plus non intensive chemotherapy (i.e., VEN combined with HMAs or LDAC). Despite the inclusion criteria in the VIALE-A trial being based on the modified Ferrara criteria, in our review, the criteria to define intensive chemotherapy ineligibility (unfit) were based on the investigator's or treating physician's criteria in each article. No upper or lower age limit was applied given that the authors stated that patients were considered unfit for intensive chemotherapy. We included patients treated with VEN-AZA, VEN-DEC or VEN-LDAC, and we presented disaggregated results by type of doublet when possible. When the type of HMA was not described or results by HMA were not reported, we classified treatment as VEN-HMA.
We also included real-world studies mixing unfit AML and relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML treated with VEN or front-line fit AML patients treated with intensive chemotherapy plus VEN, given that main outcomes of unfit AML patients were segregated (in that case the results of fit for intensive chemotherapy or R/R cohorts were dismissed).
Studies were eligible if at least one of the following primary outcomes was evaluated: 1) CR/CRi [CRc], and 2) median OS. Series not informative about CRc or median OS were not selected (Fig. 1).
The following exclusion criteria were applied: 1) reports in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL); 2) studies analyzing only a subpopulation of unfit AML patients (e.g., selection of patients by genetic categories); 3) non intent-to-treat analyses (e.g., studies only analyzing patients surviving more than 14 days after first VEN dose); 3) interventional studies in the context of phase 1 to 3 clinical trials; 4) real-world studies performed in unfit AML patients using VEN-based doublets with other drugs than HMAs or LDAC; or VEN-based triplets; 5) studies mixing subgroups of newly diagnosed unfit AML and fit and/or R/R AML where main outcomes (i.e., median OS and/or CRc) were not segregated by subgroup; and 6) studies with VEN-HMA or HMA monotherapy where main outcomes were not segregated by treatment modality.
In case of published manuscripts and EHA/ASH conference abstracts with series duplication, we included the most recent and detailed study.
Data extraction and endpoints
An extensive search of electronic databases was conducted to identify observational studies, patient registries, and other relevant reports. Of the included studies, we displayed the first author, year of publication, research site, study type, study region, study size (number of patients overall and by VEN doublet when segregated), target population description (when applicable), type of study (published studies or EHA/ASH conference abstracts), and primary outcomes (median OS and/or CRc). When CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) was reported, this was grouped in the CRc category. We also included two relevant studies with non-segregated CRc rate but instead Overall Remission Rate (ORR) [9], and CR/CRi plus Partial Response (PR) [10].
We also collected secondary outcomes as early death (ED) at 30 days (ED30) and 60 days (ED60), rate of post-VEN hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), median DoR (DoR), median relapse-free survival (RFS), median progression-free survival (PFS), and median event-free survival (EFS), when available. All data extracted are presented in Table 1 (median OS, rate of HSCT and other time estimation outcomes), and Table 2 (CRc and ED).
Statistical analyses
The age of different study cohorts was described as median and range, unless it was expressed as interquartile range (IQR). We calculated the median age (and range) of the entire evaluable cohort of studies. The mean weighted age (wmAge) was also calculated using the following formula: \(wmAge=\frac{\sum (mAge \times number\; of\; patients)}{\sum\; number\; of\; patients}\).
The CRc rate, frequency of patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT (alloHSCT), and ED rates were expressed as percentages (%). We calculated the median CRc (mCRc) and CRc range of all evaluable studies for this outcome (n = 62 studies). Median OS values for each study were showed and when available its 95% confidence interval (CI). We calculated the median of median OS values (mOS) and range of all evaluable studies for this outcome (n = 55 studies). Weighted arithmetic means of CRc (wmCRc) and mOS (wmOS) with adapted CI, were calculated for all studies reporting these outcomes (n = 62 and n = 55 studies, respectively), using the following formulas: \(wmCRc=\frac{\sum (mCRc \times number\; of\; patients)}{\sum number\; of\; patients}\) and \(wmOS=\frac{\sum (mOS \times number\; of\; patients)}{\sum number\; of\; patients}\). We calculated an adapted interval with the variance of weighted mean, and the standard error of the weighted mean was calculated as the square root of the variance of the weighted mean. The wmCRc and wmOS were also calculated for VEN-AZA series (n = 27 and n = 24 studies, respectively) (Supplementary Tables 3 and 4). The mean weighted formula of alloHSCT rate (wmHSCT) was \(wmHSCT=\frac{\sum (mAge \times number\; of\; patients)}{\sum number\; of\; patients}\). Differences between the weighted means of published studies vs. conference papers were compared using the Mann Whitney U Test, with p < 0.05 considered significant. We also calculated the median of median RFS (mRFS), and median of median DoR (mDoR).
The boxplot analysis included mCRc and mOS, across all VEN-based doublets together, VEN-HMA, VEN-AZA, and VEN-DEC groups (Figs. 2 and 3). For the boxplot figures we defined outlier studies as those with values that fall outside of three times Interquartile Range [IQR] below first quarter (Q1) or 3 times IQR above third quarter (Q3), and we described the sample size (number of involved studies), the mOS [IQR], and the mCRc [IQR].
The statistical software packages Stata 14.2 and SPSS 26.0 were used for conducting statistical analyses.
Results
Search results
The Fig. 1 shows the main results of our systematic search. In summary, we obtained 5 704 citations from databases, of them, 195 studies were screened as potentially describing outcomes in newly diagnosed unfit AML patients, and 47 were subsequently excluded as they reported exclusively results of VEN-based regimens in clinical trial or in R/R or fit AML patients. Overall, 148 abstracts or manuscripts potentially fulfilling inclusion criteria were exhaustively revised, and 75 of those studies were finally excluded. The main causes for final exclusions were lack of segregated data (n = 26 studies), repeated cohort (n = 17 studies), specific subgroup analysis (n = 10 studies), and primary outcomes non reported (n = 8 studies) (Fig. 1). Two manuscripts were excluded due to selection bias (i.e., Freeman et al. [83] excluded patients receiving less than 28 days of VEN or only one cycle of HMAs, and Bazinet et al. [84, 85] included only patients who had achieved CR). The agreement in study selection between reviewers was excellent (kappa = 0.94). A list of excluded references and the criterion for selecting overlapping studies is provided in the supplementary material.
Finally, 73 studies were eligible and analyzed, comprising 43 studies reporting both, CRc and mOS, 11 reporting only median OS, and 19 only CRc. Overall, 5,831 patients were evaluable for CRc (Table 1) and 7 138 patients for median OS (Table 2). Seventeen studies (23%) included 150 or more patients [24, 37, 43, 51, 60, 62, 63, 64, 68, 70, 72, 73, 74, 77, 79, 82, 86], including the majority of the patients (n = 6 365 patients), and 12 out of 17 (71%) studies with 150 patients or more were conference abstracts.
Median age was available in 68 studies, with a median of median age of 73 years (range of 17 to 92) and a wmAge of 73.0 years. In 16 studies the median age was not segregated for unfit AML treated with VEN-based regimens, and it was reported for a mixed population also including patients treated with HMA monotherapy, with intensive chemotherapy, or with R/R AML [15, 19, 21, 23, 30, 33, 35, 38, 42, 47, 51, 55, 65, 76, 78]. The median age among 53 studies without mixed populations was 73.5 (range 55 to 79), and wmAge was 72.7 years old.
Most of the collected real-world data articles were retrospective (Tables 1 and 2). The vast majority of studies included patients diagnosed after 2018, although some included data from patients diagnosed since 2013 [22, 25, 53]. While most studies reported treatment according to standard 28-days VEN cycles, a multicenter study by Willekens et al. reported a real-world series using a VEN-AZA regimen of 7 + 7 days, with a median OS of 12.8 months [87].
Complete remission
The CRc rate was reported in 62 studies (n = 5 831 patients), 55 with VEN-HMA only, and 7 also including VEN-LDAC in a small subset of cases (n < 100 patients) (Table 1). Overall, the mCRc was 56.2% (IQR 48.8% to 63.3%), 58.0% among VEN-AZA (IQR 49.2% to 64.3%), and 55.0% among VEN-DEC (IQR 47.6% to 67.7%) (Fig. 2). Overall, the wmCRc was 58.2%, with a significant difference between published manuscripts and conference abstracts (54.6% vs. 60.6%, respectively, p = 0.018) (Supplementary Table 1). In studies with disaggregated CRc for VEN-AZA (n = 1 607 patients), the wmCRc was 58.4%, with a non-significant difference between published manuscripts and conference abstracts (56.0% vs. 63.0%, respectively, p = 0.64) (Supplementary Table 3).
Early death
ED was reported in 26 studies (2 927 patients) (Table 1), with a median of 5% of ED30 rate (range 0% to 26%) and 13% of ED60 rate (range 0% to 41%) [11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 37, 38, 40, 41, 48, 51, 57, 64, 65, 67, 70].
Overall survival
The median OS was reported in 54 studies (n = 7 138 patients), mostly using VEN-HMAs, except for 9 manuscripts which also included small subsets of VEN-LDAC (Table 2). The study by Matthews et al. [24] was only included in the calculation of the VEN-AZA subgroup, and is not included in the 54 studies of the overall calculation. The mOS was 10.4 months overall, 9.8 months among VEN-AZA, and 12.0 months among VEN-DEC (Fig. 3). The wmOS was 10.3 months, with no significant difference between published manuscripts and conference abstracts (10.6 vs. 10.1 months, respectively, p = 0.35). In studies with disaggregated VEN-AZA results (n = 3 571 patients), the wmOS was 10.6 months, with no significant difference between published manuscripts and conference abstracts (11.7 vs 10.3 months, p = 0.23).
Focusing on some real-world studies with 150 or more patients: 1) a multicenter study by Gross et al. with 186 patients in France [62], reported a median OS of 12.4 months, noteworthy observing lower febrile neutropenia in patients with cycles of less than 21 days: 2) Mims et al. showed in a multicenter study in the US with 403 patients a median OS of 13.4 months [79] 3) Venditti et al. showed a median OS of 14.2 months among 178 Italian patients [82], 4) Vachhani et al. reported in 2022 median OS of 8.6 months among 169 US patients [29, 37], 5) Matthews et al., reported a median OS of 10 months in a US cohort of 488 patients treated with VEN-HMA [29, 37], 6) Gershon et al. published a study in 2023 with 619 patients, showing a median OS of 9.2 months [72], and 7) Fuqua et al. reported at ASH 2023 a median OS of 9.6 months among 1 393 patients of an international database [77].
AlloHSCT rate
Overall, 26 studies involving 5 144 patients reported the percentage of subsequent alloHSCT, yielding a median of 10.3% (range 0% to 29%) (Table 2). The wmHSCT was 15.4% [12, 17, 19, 20, 22, 28, 32, 33, 34, 37, 39, 50, 54, 58, 59, 61, 64, 65, 72, 73, 77, 79, 88, 89, 90, 91].
Other outcomes
RFS was reported in 7 studies (930 patients) with a mRFS of 9.3 months (range 4.0 to 14.1 months) [39, 40, 43, 57, 75, 79, 88]. Seven studies (486 patients) reported DoR, with a mDoR of 10.6 months (range 3.1 to 19.8 months) (Table 2) [9, 11, 12, 28, 50, 54, 61].
Discussion
Our systematic review provides a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of VEN-based regimens for the upfront treatment of unfit AML patients in real world. We show a wmOS of 10.3 months among 7 138 patients, significantly lower than expected according to the VIALE-A trial (14.7 months), while the wmCRc rate was 58.2% among 5 831 patients, slightly lower to that reported in the VIALE-A (66.4%) [7]. This lack of effectivity has been observed in other hematological diseases and drugs. For instance, in a series of 251 patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes treated with AZA, a discrepancy was noted between the OS data from clinical trials and real-world data [92].
As far as we know this is the more comprehensive analysis of real-world outcomes using VEN-based regimens for unfit AML patients. Du et al., performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of VEN-AZA combination for patients with AML and myelodysplastic syndromes involving 1 615 patients (newly diagnosed and R/R) from 1 randomized clinical trial (RCT) and 18 non RCT studies [93]. They found CR/CRi rate of 67.5%, while the pooled median OS could not be calculated. Ucciero et al., recently published a meta-analysis involving 1 134 newly diagnosed unfit AML patients from 19 real-world studies [94]. The pooled survival curve was similar to that reported in the VIALE-A during the first three months of treatment but diverged thereafter (the estimated median OS was 9.37 months, p < 0.0001). The CRc rate was not reported in that Italian study. We did not aim to perform a meta-analysis as this methodology was not considered proper in the context of non RCT with substantial heterogeneity between series. On the other hand, we opted by also including conference abstracts as there might be some selection bias towards publishing more positive results. In fact, we show that the wmOS was slightly higher among published manuscripts vs. conference abstracts (10.6 months vs. 10.1 months, respectively). However, the wmCRc rate was superior among abstracts than manuscripts, probably because of more accurate response assessment among peer-reviewed articles. In order to have more accurate results, we have calculated the weighted means for median OS and CRc rate, assigning more impact to larger studies. However, we also presented the median and ranges for primary efficacy outcomes (median OS and CRc), with no substantial differences with weighted means, probably due to the sizable number of studies involved.
Although it is generally accepted that results could be worse in the real-world setting than in clinical trials [95], we have observed a considerable difference in median OS between our study and the VIALE-A (4.4 months difference, 30% decrease) [7]. However, no such differences in median OS have generally been reported between phase 3 trials and real-world studies with AZA monotherapy for unfit AML. In fact, median OS after AZA was 10.4 months in the pivotal AZA-AML001 (which included some fit patients) [96], 9.6 months in the VIALE-A [7], 9.8 months in the PETHEMA-FLUGAZA (for > 65 years old patients) [97], and 8.7 months in the ASTRAL-1 (comparing with guadecitabine) [98]. Similarly, several unfit AML population-based studies have reported median OS of 7.1 months (n = 1 114 patients) [99], 9.1 months (n = 710 patients) [100], 10.4 months (n = 486 patients) [101], 9.2 months (n = 1 073 patients), and 9.9 months (n = 809 patients) [102, 103]. Moreover, it will be useful to know the results of the VEN-AZA control arm in phase 3 trials (e.g., ENHANCE-3 [NCT05079230]), in order to test the reproducibility of the median OS of the VIALE-A study. Although real-world CR/CRi rates remained higher than the 20–30% observed with HMA monotherapy [4], this was not clearly translated into an OS advantage; probably because many CRi obtained with VEN-HMA is just a pancytopenia state without evident clinical improvement of patients.
We can speculate about potential causes for discrepancy between mOS in real-world vs. VIALE-A trial: 1) patients could be frailer in the routine practice as the VIALE-A excluded some patients with severe comorbidities and/or ECOG performance of 4. However, the median age in our systematic review was 73.0 years old (vs. 76.0 years old in the VIALE-A) [7], and the weighted mean rate of alloHSCT was 15.4% (vs. < 1% in the VIALE-A) [104]. Thus, we can infer that patients “ineligible” for intensive chemotherapy treated with VEN-AZA in real-world cohorts were even less fragile than those include in the pivotal RCT; 2) an excess of initial toxicity could lead to increased death rate in real-world patients managed with VEN-based regimens. Nevertheless, the ED rate at 30 days was similar in our study as compared to the VIALE-A (5% vs 7%); 3) VEN-LDAC and VEN-DEC series have been included in our review, and this could harm the overall results. However, less than 100 out of 7 120 patients were treated with VEN-LDAC, the VEN-DEC mOS was 12.0 months, and the VEN-AZA mOS was 9.8 months (Fig. 3); 4) the VIALE-A trial could be enriched with AML subgroups who benefit more from VEN-AZA. This is plausible as the rate of secondary AML was low in the trial (25% vs up to 40% for unfit patients) [105], in part because prior HMAs exposure and antecedent of myeloproliferative neoplasms were exclusion criteria; and lower CRc rates and median OS have been reported in real-world for secondary AML [16, 29, 43, 46, 52, 55, 72, 106, 107, 108, 109]. On the other hand, with the exception of low cytogenetic risk that was excluded, the genetic profile of the VIALE-A patients (i.e., 36% of poor-risk cytogenetics, 23% of P53, 25% of IDH, 17% of NPM1 mutation) could be similar to that reported by epidemiologic registries for unfit AML [110, 111].
In our opinion, the patient selection and management of VEN could be the main factors leading to reduced median OS observed in the real-world cohorts. In order to improve outcomes, it could be reasonable to cautiously use VEN for very frail patients (e.g., with severe comorbidities and/or extreme age) and for subsets where there is no evidence of substantial benefit by adding VEN (e.g., prior HMAs exposure, P53 mutated, or secondary AML) [4, 29, 37, 52, 60, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 112, 113]. Regarding management, initial hospitalization followed by tight monitoring by skilled teams during aplastic phases should be recommended, as infectious complications, among others, could jeopardize tolerability and long-term feasibility of VEN schedules. Furthermore, dose adjustments and drug-drug interactions might be challenging in older AML patients, leading to potential toxicities and overdosage. An option might be therapeutic drug monitoring of VEN given the observed variability in pharmacokinetics and the potential for varying responses due to factors like adherence, food effects, and the influence of P-gp or CYP3A4 inhibitors on drug exposure [114]. Furthermore, Philippe et al. stated that the duration of VEN treatment has been generally reduced from 28 days to 21 or 14 days in routine practice to limit cytopenia and the risk of complications while maintaining a satisfactory CR rate [114].
Our study has limitations as it is a literature review mainly based in retrospective series, and many of them were reported only as conference abstracts (not peer-reviewed). Obviously, our findings should not replace the best evidence to date on VEN-AZA efficacy, which is the randomized double-blinded VIALE-A trial. However, our systematic review emphasizes on the need of optimizing the VEN regimens indication and management in the real world. Moreover, although VEN has emerged as a new standard of care for unfit AML patients, we highlight that we might be far from achieving dramatic improvements in the real-world setting. Also, our results should warn about replacing intensive chemotherapy by VEN-HMA for older but fit AML patients, at least until having well designed trials demonstrating superiority of this strategy. Our data should be critically re-assessed in the following years, exploring the long-term benefits while physicians refine the management of this relatively novel therapy. Finally, our study could be useful for regulators when advising design of new clinical trials with VEN-based schedules (i.e., triplets or doublets for fit or unfit AML patients).
In conclusion, groundbreaking median OS reported in the VIALE-A trial using VEN-AZA was not well reproduced in real world for unfit newly diagnosed AML patients (14.7 vs. 10.3 months); while ED and CRc rates were more consistent. Strategies to optimize patient selection, dosing regimens, and supportive care management are crucial to improve outcomes in real-world practice.
Data availability
Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.
References
Shallis RM, Wang R, Davidoff A et al (2019) Epidemiology of acute myeloid leukemia: Recent progress and enduring challenges. Blood Rev 36:70–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.blre.2019.04.005
Saiz-Rodríguez M, Labrador J, Cuevas B et al (2021) Use of Azacitidine or Decitabine for the Up-Front Setting in Acute Myeloid Leukaemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel) 13:5677. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13225677
Kantarjian HM, Thomas XG, Dmoszynska A et al (2012) Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial of Decitabine Versus Patient Choice, With Physician Advice, of Either Supportive Care or Low-Dose Cytarabine for the Treatment of Older Patients With Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia. J Clin Oncol 30:2670–2677. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.38.9429
Labrador J, Martínez-Cuadrón D, de la Fuente A et al (2022) Azacitidine vs. Decitabine in Unfit Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients: Results from the PETHEMA Registry. Cancers (Basel) 14:2342. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14092342
Cortes JE, Heidel FH, Hellmann A et al (2019) Randomized comparison of low dose cytarabine with or without glasdegib in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. Leukemia 33:379–389. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-018-0312-9
Hubscher E, Sikirica S, Bell T et al (2021) Patterns of undertreatment among patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML): considerations for patients eligible for non-intensive chemotherapy (NIC). J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 147:3359–3368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-021-03756-7
DiNardo CD, Jonas BA, Pullarkat V et al (2020) Azacitidine and Venetoclax in Previously Untreated Acute Myeloid Leukemia. N Engl J Med 383:617–629. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2012971
Wei AH, Montesinos P, Ivanov V et al (2020) Venetoclax plus LDAC for newly diagnosed AML ineligible for intensive chemotherapy: a phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled trial. Blood 135:2137–2145. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2020004856
Hoff FW, Patel PA, Belli AJ, et al (2023) Real-world outcomes of frontline venetoclax-based therapy in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia: an analysis utilizing EHR data. Leuk Lymphoma 0:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2023.2197090
Jimenez-Vicente C, Martinez-Roca A, Bataller A, et al (2021) EP472: Rreal-life preliminary experience of treatment of newly-diagnosed and refractory/relapsed (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia patients with combination of venetoclax with hypomethylating agents. Hemasphere 197–198
Winters AC, Gutman JA, Purev E et al (2019) Real-world experience of venetoclax with azacitidine for untreated patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Adv 3:2911–2919. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000243
Morsia E, McCullough K, Joshi M et al (2020) Venetoclax and hypomethylating agents in acute myeloid leukemia: Mayo Clinic series on 86 patients. Am J Hematol 95:1511–1521. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.25978
Cherry EM, Abbott D, Amaya M et al (2021) Venetoclax and azacitidine compared with induction chemotherapy for newly diagnosed patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Adv 5:5565–5573. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005538
Gozzo L, Vetro C, Brancati S et al (2021) Off-Label Use of Venetoclax in Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Single Center Experience and Data From Pharmacovigilance Database. Front Pharmacol 12:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.748766
Mirgh S, Sharma A, Shaikh MRMA et al (2021) Hypomethylating agents+venetoclax induction therapy in acute myeloid leukemia unfit for intensive chemotherapy - novel avenues for lesser venetoclax duration and patients with baseline infections from a developing country. Am J Blood Res 11:290–302
De Bellis E, Imbergamo S, Candoni A et al (2022) Venetoclax in combination with hypomethylating agents in previously untreated patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive treatment: a real-life multicenter experience. Leuk Res 114:106803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2022.106803
Chen EC, Liu Y, Harris CE et al (2022) Outcomes of antifungal prophylaxis for newly diagnosed AML patients treated with a hypomethylating agent and venetoclax. Leuk Lymphoma 63:1934–1941. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2022.2047964
Chen Y, Cao J, Ye Y, et al (2022) Hypomethylating agents combined with low-dose chemotherapy for elderly patients with acute myeloid leukaemia unfit for intensive chemotherapy: a real-world clinical experience. Journal of Chemotherapy 0:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/1120009X.2022.2097433
Fleischmann M, Scholl S, Frietsch JJ et al (2022) Clinical experience with venetoclax in patients with newly diagnosed, relapsed, or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 148:3191–3202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-022-03930-5
Garciaz S, Decroocq J, Bertoli S et al (2022) Azacitidine plus Venetoclax for the Treatment of Relapsed and Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients. Cancers (Basel) 14:2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14082025
Jensen CE, Heiling HM, Beke KE et al (2023) Time spent at home among older adults with acute myeloid leukemia receiving azacitidine- or venetoclax-based regimens. Haematologica 108:1006–1014. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2022.280728
Kwag D, Cho B-S, Bang S-Y et al (2022) Venetoclax with decitabine versus decitabine monotherapy in elderly acute myeloid leukemia: a propensity score-matched analysis. Blood Cancer J 12:169. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-022-00770-x
Laloi L, Billotey NC, Dumas PY, et al (2022) Retrospective, real-life study of venetoclax plus azacitidine or low-dose cytarabine in French patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. Cancer Med 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.5459
Matthews AH, Perl AE, Luger SM et al (2022) Real-world effectiveness of CPX-351 vs venetoclax and azacitidine in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Adv 6:3997–4005. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2022007265
Mustafa Ali MK, Corley EM, Alharthy H et al (2022) Outcomes of Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients Treated With Hypomethylating Agents With or Without Venetoclax: A Propensity Score-Adjusted Cohort Study. Front Oncol 12:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.858202
Ong SY, Tan Si Yun M, Abdul Halim NA, et al (2022) Real-World Experience of Measurable Residual Disease Response and Prognosis in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treated with Venetoclax and Azacitidine. Cancers (Basel) 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14153576
Roldán Pérez A, Vázquez Paganini JA, Penalva Moreno MJ et al (2022) Real-life experience of venetoclax and hypomethylating agents in acute myeloid leukemia patients not candidates for intensive chemotherapy or who are refractory/relapsed: A single-centre experience. Clin Case Rep 10:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccr3.6116
Todisco E, Papayannidis C, Fracchiolla N et al (2023) AVALON: The Italian cohort study on real-life efficacy of hypomethylating agents plus venetoclax in newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer 129:992–1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34608
Vachhani P, Flahavan EM, Xu T et al (2022) Venetoclax and Hypomethylating Agents as First-line Treatment in Newly Diagnosed Patients with AML in a Predominately Community Setting in the US. Oncologist 27:907–918. https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyac135
Zhu L, xia, Chen R rong, Wang L lu, et al (2022) A real-world study of infectious complications of venetoclax combined with decitabine or azacitidine in adult acute myeloid leukemia. Support Care Cancer 30:7031–7038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07126-y
Aiba M, Shigematsu A, Suzuki T, Miyagishima T (2023) Shorter duration of venetoclax administration to 14 days has same efficacy and better safety profile in treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Ann Hematol 102:541–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-023-05102-y
Bouligny IM, Murray G, Doyel M et al (2023) Venetoclax with decitabine or azacitidine in the first-line treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. EJHaem 4:381–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/jha2.663
Brandwein JM, Ebeling K, Ding L et al (2023) Changing frontline AML treatment patterns from 2013 to 2022. Leuk Res 132:107354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2023.107354
Candoni A, Lazzarotto D, Papayannidis C et al (2023) Prospective multicenter study on infectious complications and clinical outcome of 230 unfit acute myeloid leukemia patients receiving first-line therapy with hypomethylating agents alone or in combination with Venetoclax. Am J Hematol 230:80–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.26846
Kong F-C, Qi L, Huang W-F, et al (2023) Efficacy and Survival of Venetoclax Based Regimen in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Zhongguo Shi Yan Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 31:1676–1683. https://doi.org/10.19746/j.cnki.issn.1009-2137.2023.06.012
Sciumè M, Bosi A, Canzi M et al (2023) Real-life monocentric experience of venetoclax-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Front Oncol 13:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1149298
Vachhani P, Ma E, Xu T, et al (2023) Post-remission cytopenia management in patients with AML treated with venetoclax in combination with hypomethylating agents: Pre- versus post-VIALE-A real-world experience from a predominantly US community setting. Cancer Med 17914–17923. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.6430
Wang ST, Chou CH, Chen TT et al (2022) High rate of invasive fungal infections during early cycles of azacitidine for patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 12:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2022.1012334
Zeidan AM, Pollyea DA, Borate U et al (2023) Venetoclax plus azacitidine compared with intensive chemotherapy as induction for patients with acute myeloid leukemia: retrospective analysis of an electronic medical record database in the United States. Ann Hematol 102:749–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-023-05109-5
Alam A, al Qawasmeh K, McCarthy PL, (2021) Low Intensity Alternative Induction Therapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML). Real World Experience from Tawam Hospital. United Arab Emirates Blood 138:4409–4409. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-145484
Alwadi M, Howaidi J, Alrajhi AM et al (2021) Safety and Efficacy of Azacitidine with Venetoclax for Newly Diagnosed Intensive Chemotherapy Ineligible, and Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Arab Population: A Single-Center, Retrospective Study. Blood 138:4423–4423. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-153335
Bouchard P, Brisebois-Boyer A, Beaudry A et al (2021) Efficacy, Toxicity and Cost of Venetoclax-Based Combinations for the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Real-World Evidence from a Canadian Academic Center. Blood 138:1253–1253. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-149967
Grenet J, Jain AG, Burkart M et al (2021) Comparing Outcomes between Liposomal Daunorubicin/Cytarabine (CPX-351) and HMA+Venetoclax As Frontline Therapy in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Blood 138:32–32. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-145947
Nanni J, Papayannidis C, Cristiano G et al (2021) An Outpatient Management for First Cycle of Venetoclax and Hypomethylating Agents Results in Reduced Infection Rate and Hospitalizations in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients. Blood 138:2340–2340. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-149535
Qian J, Xu J, Hong Q et al (2021) A Real World Study of Venetoclax Combined with Azacitidine in 64 Chinese Patients Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Blood 138:4414–4414. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-149523
Tan I, Schwede M, Phan P et al (2021) Heterogeneous Definitions of Secondary Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Yield Distinct Outcomes in Response to First-Line Treatment with Hypomethylating Agents (HMA) and Venetoclax (Ven). Blood 138:1216–1216. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-147886
Volpe VO, Jain AG, Chan O et al (2021) Outcomes By Best Response with Hypomethylating Agent Plus Venetoclax in Adults with Previously Untreated Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Blood 138:2292–2292. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-149782
Wolach O, Levi I, Lavie D et al (2021) Real World Prospective Observational Multicenter Trial of Venetoclax-Based Therapy for Patients with AML Reveals Unique Patterns of Patient Selection and Treatment Utilization - Revive Study. Blood 138:1246–1246. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-147245
Yu WJ, Jia J, Wang J et al (2021) Safety and Short-Term Efficacy of Venetoclax Combined with Azacitidine in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Single Institution Experience. Blood 138:4413–4413. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-148259
Christopher D, Abdul Halim NA, Gallardo CA et al (2022) PB1813: Efficacy of Azacitidine and Venetoclax in Aml Patients May Be Limited By Interaction With Posaconazole and Lack of Standardised Treatment Protocol. Real World Data From 3 Major Centres in Singapore. Hemasphere 6:1693–1694. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hs9.0000850104.80221.19
Ganzel C, Moshe Y, Levi I et al (2022) Clinical Predictors for Relapse Among Patients with AML Who Responded to Venetoclax-Based Treatment - a Real-World Prospective Analysis from the Revive Study Group. Blood 140:9002–9004. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2022-162140
Johnson I, McCullough K, Farrukh F et al (2022) P544: Molecular Predictors of Response and Survival in Treatment-Naïve Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia Following Venetoclax and Hypomethylating Agents. Hemasphere 6:443–444. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hs9.0000845064.44923.05
Kale BJ, Hwang G, Teegavarapu PS et al (2022) A Real-World Single-Institution Experience with Hypomethylating Agents Plus BCL-2 Inhibitor for the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Blood 140:8934–8935. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2022-170210
Lam HPJ, Leong S, Kirkham Z et al (2022) P547: Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukaemia Treated With Venetoclax Combination Therapy: Real-World Experience in Both Frontline and Relapsed/Refractory Settings. Hemasphere 6:446–447. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hs9.0000845076.68865.45
Minarik L, Stopka T, Zemanova Z, Jonasova A (2022) PB1925: Venetoclax in Combination With Azacitidine or Low-Dose Cytarabine in Patients With High-Risk Mds and Aml - Experience of a Czech Haematology Centre. Hemasphere 6:1804–1805. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hs9.0000850552.03059.c9
Philippe M, Guitton J, Favier B et al (2022) Venetoclax Pharmacokinetics in Real World AML Patients: A Real Candidate for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. Blood 140:6179–6180. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2022-168327
Ramos Perez JM, Tinajero J, Ngo D et al (2022) Evaluation of 5-Day Vs. 10-Day Decitabine in Combination with Venetoclax in Newly Diagnosed AML Patients Ineligible for Induction Chemotherapy. Blood 140:9039–9040. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2022-170867
Williams EE, McQuinn D, Banaszak LG et al (2022) Impact of Early Hospitalization, Medical Comorbidities and Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation on Survival in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients Treated with Venetoclax Based Therapy - a Single Institution Experience from an Academic Center. Blood 140:6099–6101. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2022-169577
Burke M, Sallman DA, Denson A et al (2023) Antifungal Prophylaxis in Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treated with a Hypomethylating Agent and Venetoclax: A Real-World Experience in Pharmacovigilance. Blood 142:2899–2899. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-187206
Dai H, Chen J, Bao X et al (2023) Venetoclax Combined with Hypomethylation Agents As Induction Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia - Priliminary Results from a Real World Study in China. Blood 142:1518–1518. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-189654
Desai P, Garcia JS, Zeidner JF et al (2023) Comparative Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Healthcare Resource Utilization (HRU) in Patients (Pts) with Newly Diagnosed (ND) Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Unfit for High-Intensity Chemotherapy Treated with Venetoclax (VEN) Vs Other Therapies: Results fr. Blood 142:5173–5173. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-173283
Gross Z, Tauveron-Jalenques U, Aspas Requena G et al (2023) Real World Use of Azacitidine and Venetoclax in Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Frontline and Relapse/Refractory Settings: A Multicentric Study from French Auraml Group. Blood 142:590–590. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-187331
Karrar O, Iftikhar M, McCullough K et al (2023) Survival and Prognosis Among 301 Patients with Newly-Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia Following Venetoclax Plus Hypomethylating Agent Therapy. Blood 142:591–591. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-178837
Lee MH, La J, Brophy MT et al (2023) Psychiatric and Substance Use Disorders Are Independent Predictors of Treatment Response and Outcomes in United States Veterans with Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treated with Venetoclax Combinations. Blood 142:388–388. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-180915
Lopez-Garcia YK, De La Garza F, De la Rosa-Flores GA et al (2023) Outpatient Low-Dose Venetoclax Plus Azacitidine Vs. Intensive Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed Fit Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia in a Limited Resource Setting. Blood 142:1529–1529. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-188088
Martini G, Zappasodi P, Ferretti VV et al (2023) Pb1861: Efficacy and Toxicity of Venetoclax Plus Hypomethylating Agents in the Real Life of Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Hemasphere 7:e90440f4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hs9.0000974280.90440.f4
Pomares H, Arribas I, Quiñones T et al (2023) LONG-TERM Outcomes after Venetoclax-Hypomethylating Agent Combination Therapy Discontinuation, in Patients with ACUTE Myeloid Leukemia. Experience of a Single Center. Blood 142:4225–4225. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-178351
Shimony S, Bewersdorf JP, Shallis RM et al (2023) What Is the Optimal Treatment Modality in Molecularly Defined Secondary AML? a Multicenter Cohort Study. Blood 142:1478–1478. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-172763
Solh MM, Solomon SR, Morris L et al (2023) Compared to Venetoclax Plus Hypomethylating Agents, High Dose Cytarabine Based Intensive Chemotherapy Induction for Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Leads to a Faster Remission Resulting in Better Survival. Blood 142:2896–2896. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-186117
Wang Y, Marie Mcneill A, Doran C et al (2023) P572: Real-World Management and Outcomes for Newly Diagnosed Aml Patients Initiating Venetoclax and Hypomethylating Agents in Us Community Practice. Hemasphere 7:e5986813. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hs9.0000969192.59868.13
Garciaz S, Hospital MA, Alary AS, et al (2022) Azacitidine plus Venetoclax for the Treatment of Relapsed and Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients. Cancers (Basel) 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14082025
Gershon A, Ma E, Xu T et al (2023) Early Real-World First-Line Treatment With Venetoclax Plus HMAs Versus HMA Monotherapy Among Patients With AML in a Predominately US Community Setting. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 23:e222–e231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2023.02.002
Matthews AH, Perl AE, Luger SM et al (2023) Real-world effectiveness of intensive chemotherapy with 7&3 versus venetoclax and hypomethylating agent in acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Hematol 98:1254–1264. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.26991
Abbott D, Bosma G, McMahon CM et al (2022) Overall Survival and Its Interplay with Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant and Age in Newly Diagnosed AML Patients Treated with Ven/Aza. Blood 140:6181–6182. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2022-169026
Chow LD, Chen D, Vergara-Lluri ME et al (2022) Survival and Outcomes after Relapse in Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Patients Treated with Venetoclax-Based Chemotherapy. Blood 140:9027–9028. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2022-171127
Gajra A, Kish JK, Russell-Smith A, Savill KM (2022) Real-World Observational Study of Outcomes for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) in Patients Treated with Glasdegib or Venetoclax in US Community Oncology Practices. Blood 140:5296–5297. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2022-163621
Fuqua J, Abonofal A, Safi SUD (2023) Effectiveness of Intensive Chemotherapy with 7+3 Versus Vidaza and Venetoclax in Acute Myeloid Leukemia with Sequential Stem Cell Transplant: Results from Real-World Cohorts. Blood 142:1487–1487. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-187949
Martinez-Cuadron D, Boluda B, Algarra JL et al (2023) Treatment Outcomes in Unfit Patients with Newly Acute Myeloid Leukemia According to IDH1 Mutational Status: Real World Evidence from the Pethema Epidemiologic Registry. Blood 142:4223–4223. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-189800
Mims A, Xie Z, Vasconcelos A et al (2023) Intensive Chemotherapy (IC) Followed By Oral Azacitidine (AZA) Maintenance Versus Venetoclax (VEN) Plus AZA for Patients (pts) with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML): Retrospective Analysis of an Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Database in the United States. Blood 142:550–550. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-173442
Miyashita N, Onozawa M, Nagai J et al (2023) Genetic Mutation and Outcome of Venetoclax-Based Therapy in Newly Diagnosed AML in the Real World: Hokkaido Leukemia Net Study. Blood 142:1470–1470. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-173909
Roman Souza G, Lucero KT, Mines I et al (2023) Clinical Outcomes and Cardiovascular Adverse Events of Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treated with Venetoclax Plus a Hypomethylating Agent or Low-Dose Cytarabine in the Veterans Health Administration: A National Retrospective Cohort Study. Blood 142:4235–4235. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-190526
Venditti A, Piciocchi A, Soddu S et al (2023) Real World Outcome of Unfit Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treated with the Combination Venetoclax Plus Hypomethylating Agents in the Gimema AML2320 Observational Trial. Blood 142:1514–1514. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-178505
Freeman T, Williams K, Puto M et al (2023) Real-World Experience of Adults With Acute Myeloid Leukemia on Hypomethylating Agents With or Without Venetoclax at a Comprehensive Cancer Center. World J Oncol. 14:40–50. https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1557
Bazinet A, Kadia T, Short N et al (2022) P506: Achievement of Measurable Residual Disease Clearance Is a Stronger Predictor of Patient Outcome Than Treatment Intensity in Newly Diagnosed Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Hemasphere 6:405–406. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hs9.0000844912.65235.a5
Bazinet A, Kantarjian H, Arani N et al (2022) Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Older Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Analysis of Outcomes and Contemporary Trends Spanning 10 Years. Blood 140:4872–4875. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2022-162962
Vachhani P, Ma E, Xu T et al (2022) Real-World Treatment Experience of Venetoclax in Combination with Hypomethylating Agents in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Updated Experience from a Predominately Community Setting in the US. Blood 140:683–684. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2022-157509
Willekens C, Chraibi S, Decroocq J et al (2022) Reduced Venetoclax Exposition to Seven Days of Azacitidine Is Efficient in Treatment-Naïve Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Blood 140:537–538. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2022-165464
Sciumè M, Bosi A, Canzi M et al (2023) Real-life monocentric experience of venetoclax-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Front Oncol 13:3215–3216. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1149298
Johnson IM, Bezerra ED, Farrukh F et al (2022) Cardiac events in patients with acute myeloid leukemia treated with venetoclax combined with hypomethylating agents. Blood Adv 6:5227–5231. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2022007333
Venditti A, Hou J-Z, Fenaux P et al (2023) Outcomes in Chemotherapy-Ineligible Elderly Patients with Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treated with Venetoclax Plus Azacitidine: A Pooled Analysis. Blood 142:2886–2886. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-182045
Wolach O, Garcia JS, Desai P et al (2022) Comparison of Patients with Newly Diagnosed (ND) Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Treated with Venetoclax and Hypomethylating Agents Vs Other Therapies By TP53 and IDH1/2 Mutation: Results from the AML Real World Evidence (ARC) Initiative. Blood 140:11026–11028. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2022-159615
Bernal T, Martínez-Camblor P, Sánchez-García J et al (2015) Effectiveness of azacitidine in unselected high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: results from the Spanish registry. Leukemia 29:1875–1881. https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2015.115
Du Y, Li C, Yan J (2023) The efficacy and safety of venetoclax and azacytidine combination treatment in patients with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Hematology 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/16078454.2023.2198098
Ucciero A, Pagnoni F, Scotti L, et al (2023) Venetoclax with Hypomethylating Agents in Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survival Data from Real-World Studies. Cancers (Basel) 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/CANCERS15184618
Nachtkamp K, Stark J, Kündgen A et al (2021) Eligibility for clinical trials is unsatisfactory for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes, even at a tertiary referral center. Leuk Res 108:106611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2021.106611
Pleyer L, Döhner H, Dombret H, et al (2017) Azacitidine for Front-Line Therapy of Patients with AML: Reproducible Efficacy Established by Direct Comparison of International Phase 3 Trial Data with Registry Data from the Austrian Azacitidine Registry of the AGMT Study Group. Int J Mol Sci 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJMS18020415
Simoes C, Paiva B, Martínez-Cuadrón D et al (2021) Measurable residual disease in elderly acute myeloid leukemia: results from the PETHEMA-FLUGAZA phase 3 clinical trial. Blood Adv 5:760–770. https://doi.org/10.1182/BLOODADVANCES.2020003195
Fenaux P, Gobbi M, Kropf PL et al (2023) Guadecitabine vs treatment choice in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: a global phase 3 randomized study. Blood Adv 7:5027. https://doi.org/10.1182/BLOODADVANCES.2023010179
Zeidan AM, Wang R, Wang X et al (2020) Clinical outcomes of older patients with AML receiving hypomethylating agents: a large population-based study in the United States. Blood Adv 4:2192. https://doi.org/10.1182/BLOODADVANCES.2020001779
Falantes J, Pleyer L, Thépot S et al (2018) Real life experience with frontline azacitidine in a large series of older adults with acute myeloid leukemia stratified by MRC/LRF score: results from the expanded international E-ALMA series (E-ALMA+). Leuk Lymphoma 59:1113–1120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2017.1365854
Labrador J, Martínez-Cuadrón D, De La Fuente A, et al (2022) Azacitidine vs. Decitabine in Unfit Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients: Results from the PETHEMA Registry. Cancers (Basel) 14:. https://doi.org/10.3390/CANCERS14092342
Récher C, Röllig C, Bérard E et al (2022) Long-term survival after intensive chemotherapy or hypomethylating agents in AML patients aged 70 years and older: a large patient data set study from European registries. Leukemia 36:913–922. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-021-01425-9
Miyamoto T, Sanford D, Tomuleasa C et al (2022) Real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with AML unfit for first-line intensive chemotherapy *. Leuk Lymphoma 63:928–938. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2021.2002321
Pratz K, Dinardo C, Arellano ML et al (2023) P525: Long-Term Outcomes Of Stem Cell Transplant In Older Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treated With Venetoclax + Hma Therapies. Hemasphere 7:e68978fe. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HS9.0000969008.68978.FE
Martínez-Cuadrón D, Megías-Vericat JE, Gil C et al (2024) Outcomes after intensive chemotherapy for secondary and myeloid-related changes acute myeloid leukemia patients aged 60 to 75 years old: a retrospective analysis from the PETHEMA registry. Haematologica 109:115–128. https://doi.org/10.3324/HAEMATOL.2022.282506
Maher KR, Bouligny IM (2021) A Retrospective Comparison of Hypomethylating Agent in Combination with Venetoclax Versus Liposomal Daunorubicin and Cytarabine in Frontline Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Blood 138:2336–2336. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-153918
Short NJ, Venugopal S, Qiao W et al (2022) Impact of frontline treatment approach on outcomes in patients with secondary AML with prior hypomethylating agent exposure. J Hematol Oncol 15:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-022-01229-z
Alharthy H, Alkaabba F, Williams M et al (2022) Outcomes of Newly Diagnosed Therapy-Related AML and AML with Myelodysplasia-Related Changes Treated with 7+3, Hypomethylating Agents with or without Venetoclax and CPX-351: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Blood 140:9025–9026. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2022-170688
Latagliata R, Cristiano G, Lama D et al (2022) Association of Hypometilating Agents (HMA) + Venetoclax (VEN) in the Treatment of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms in Blastic Phase (MPN-BP) and Acute Leukemias Evolved from Myelodysplastic Syndromes (AML-MDS) Already Treated with Azacytidine. Blood 140:6176–6178. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2022-167334
Sargas C, Ayala R, Chillón MC et al (2021) Networking for advanced molecular diagnosis in acute myeloid leukemia patients is possible: the PETHEMA NGS-AML project. Haematologica 106:3079–3089. https://doi.org/10.3324/HAEMATOL.2020.263806
Sargas C, Ayala R, Larráyoz MJ, et al (2023) Molecular Landscape and Validation of New Genomic Classification in 2668 Adult AML Patients: Real Life Data from the PETHEMA Registry. Cancers (Basel) 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/CANCERS15020438
Venugopal S, Shoukier M, Konopleva M et al (2021) Outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed TP53-mutated acute myeloid leukemia with or without venetoclax-based therapy. Cancer 127:3541–3551. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33675
Daver NG, Iqbal S, Huang J et al (2023) Clinical characteristics and overall survival among acute myeloid leukemia patients with TP53 gene mutation or chromosome 17p deletion. Am J Hematol 98:1176–1184. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.26941
Philippe M, Guitton J, Goutelle S et al (2024) Pharmacokinetic Consideration of Venetoclax in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients: A Potential Candidate for TDM? A Short Communication. Ther Drug Monit 46:127–131. https://doi.org/10.1097/FTD.0000000000001151
Funding
This study was partially funded by Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe (IISLAFE): 2020–017-1 and 2022–829-1, and by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII): CM23/00148.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
PM and ASA designed the study, collected, and analyzed the data and wrote de manuscript. RRV and DMC collected and analyzed the data and revised the final draft of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
PM has served in a consultancy position for Menarini/Stemline, Gilead, Otsuka, Kura Oncology, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Astellas, Pfizer, Incyte, Takeda, Ryvu, and Nerviano; reports receiving research funding from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Menarini/Stemline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda; and has served on a speakers bureau for AbbVie, Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.
ASA, RRV and DMC declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Solana-Altabella, A., Rodríguez-Veiga, R., Martínez-Cuadrón, D. et al. A systematic review of venetoclax for the treatment of unfit AML patients in real-world: is all that glitters gold?. Ann Hematol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-024-05891-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-024-05891-w