Abstract
The understanding of the molecular pathobiology of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has spurred the identification of therapeutic targets and the development of corresponding novel targeted therapies. Since 2017, twelve agents have been approved for the treatment of AML subsets: the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax; the CD33 antibody drug conjugate gemtuzumab ozogamicin; three FLT3 inhibitors (midostaurin, gilteritinib, quizartinib); three IDH inhibitors (ivosidenib and olutasidenib targeting IDH1 mutations; enasidenib targeting IDH2 mutations); two oral hypomethylating agents (oral poorly absorbable azacitidine; fully absorbable decitabine-cedazuridine [latter approved as an alternative to parenteral hypomethylating agents in myelodysplastic syndrome and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia but commonly used in AML]); and CPX-351 (encapsulated liposomal 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin), and glasdegib (hedgehog inhibitor). Other targeted therapies (menin inhibitors, CD123 antibody-drug conjugates) are showing promising results. To achieve optimal results in such a rare and heterogeneous entity as AML requires expertise, familiarity with this rare cancer, and the access to, and delivery of disparate therapies under rigorous supportive care conditions. In this review, we update the standard-of-care and investigational therapies and outline promising current and future research directions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
A better understanding of the pathobiology of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has accelerated the progress of translational-clinical research and therapeutic applications [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Even though the first AML therapeutic building blocks were established five decades ago, cytarabine (ara-C) and anthracyclines combined into “7 + 3” (7 days of cytarabine, 3 days of daunorubicin) is still considered the standard of care by many AML experts and in community practices [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Yet it is a poor standard of care since the long-term cure rate is 40% or less in younger patients fit for intensive chemotherapy (younger/fit), as reported in trials with strict inclusion/exclusion criteria [7]. These trials exclude “treated secondary AML” (AML progression from myelodysplastic syndrome [MDS] post treatment with hypomethylating agents [HMAs]; about 20% of AML; poor prognosis). In patients older than 60 years and fit for 7 + 3 intensive chemotherapy, the median survival is about 9 months, and the 5-year survival rate is 10% or less [8]. These figures also discount older patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy (older/unfit) because of age (>75–80 years), poor performance status, co-morbidities, or organ dysfunctions. This population may constitute 30–40% of all patients since the median age in patients with AML is 68–70 years. Before the advent of epigenetic therapies (HMA-based), older/unfit patients with AML were offered supportive care or hospice care and had a median survival of 2–6 months. Today, most older/unfit patients are offered epigenetic/lower-intensity therapies. Thus, we believe there are better regimens using intensive chemotherapy plus targeted agents for younger/fit AML, and better regimens using lower-intensity chemotherapy plus targeted agents for older/unfit AML [1,2,3,4,5,6]
The clinical, morphologic, cytogenetic, and molecular heterogeneity of AML is consequential at multiple levels. It provides prognostic information, allows the incorporation of targeted therapies, and guides the optimal therapy in many AML subsets. The latter is illustrated by the treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and core-binding factor (CBF) AML. In APL, the chemotherapy-free regimen of all trans-retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide produces cure rates of 95 + % [9,10,11,12,13]. In CBF AML, combining gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO; CD33-targeted antibody-drug conjugate with a calicheamicin payload) with high-dose cytarabine based regimens increased the long-term survival rate from 50% to 75–80% [14,15,16,17].
Distinguishing the pathophysiologic-molecular entities in AML resulted in the regulatory approval of 12 novel agents since 2017, and more importantly, their rapid incorporation into highly effective regimens (Table 1). Venetoclax, a first-in-class B-cell leukemia/lymphoma 2 (BCL2) inhibitor, was approved in combination with epigenetic therapy/HMA (azacitidine and decitabine) or low-dose cytarabine for the treatment of newly diagnosed older/unfit AML, and is now being investigated as an addition to intensive chemotherapy in younger/fit AML as well as in triple-combination regimens (adding a targeted therapy such as a fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 [FLT3] or isocitrate dehydrogenase [IDH] inhibitor to the HMA-venetoclax backbone), or with the “triple-nucleoside” regimen in older AML regardless of fitness for intensive chemotherapy. Three FLT3 inhibitors are now approved for different indications in FLT3-mutated AML: gilteritinib as a single agent for refractory-relapsed, FLT3-mutated AML; midostaurin and quizartinib in combination with intensive chemotherapy for frontline therapy of FLT3-mutated (midostaurin) or FLT3-internal tandem duplication (ITD)-AML (quizartinib). Sorafenib, another FLT3 and multikinase inhibitor, is approved as a kinase inhibitor for solid tumor indications (renal cell and hepatocellular carcinoma), and is used, particularly as maintenance post allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), in FLT3-ITD AML. Three IDH inhibitors are approved in IDH-mutated AML: ivosidenib and olutasidenib targeting IDH1 mutations; enasidenib targeting IDH2 mutations. Enasidenib and olutasidenib are approved as salvage single-agent therapy for refractory-relapsed disease. Ivosidenib is approved in refractory relapsed disease, but also as frontline therapy as a single-agent therapy (frail patients) or in combination with azacitidine. Investigation of combinations of the IDH inhibitors with intensive chemotherapy and with HMA-venetoclax are ongoing. Other approved agents are: (1) Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO); approved in 2002, withdrawn from the market in 2010, and re-approved in 2017, based on a meta-analysis of 5 randomized trials showing its significant benefit in favorable-risk and intermediate-risk AML (17) (2) A poorly absorbable oral formulation of azacitidine (300 mg orally [PO] twice daily x 14 days every month) as maintenance therapy in AML patients in complete remission (CR) who are not candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) [18] (3) CPX-351 (liposomal encapsulated cytarabine-daunorubicin 5:1 molar ratio) for adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC) [19]; and (4) glasdegib (hedgehog inhibitor) in combination with low-dose cytarabine for newly-diagnosed AML in patients 75+ years or who have comorbidities. (5) Decitabine-cedazuridine, a highly absorbable (99% absorption) oral formulation of decitabine, is approved as an alternative to parenteral HMAs in myelodysplastic syndrome and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (MDS, CMML), and is used commonly in AML in combinations with venetoclax ± other targeted therapies, offering a total AML oral regimen (reducing hospitalizations and clinic visits, decreasing some costs of care and improving quality of life) [20]. Promising investigational strategies (nearing community practice application) include (1) the menin inhibitors in mixed lineage leukemia (MLL1)-rearranged, referred later to as KMT2A-rearranged acute leukemia, nucleophosmin1 exon-12 gene (NPM1)-mutated AML and AML with HOX-A9/MEIS upregulation (could be 40–50% of all AML; “menin-like signature”?) [21, 22]; (2) CD123-targeting antibody drug conjugates (ADCs); (3) and perhaps natural killer (NK) cell immunotherapy for AML with residual measurable disease (MRD)/high-risk AML.
Comparing this AML review to ones published in 2016 and 2021 (1,2) illustrates profoundly how rapid AML research progress has been. And this rapid pace of discovery highlights a weakness in some clinical trial designs. With so many therapeutic tools, randomized trials comparing one such agent added to a standard-of-care regimen may produce positive results, but ones that are obsolete by the time the data are reported, oftentimes 5–15 years later. We address this by proposing to use single-arm trials of biomarker-driven AML subsets, with Bayesian designs (incorporating previous knowledge) and comparisons to contemporary historical controls (propensity score matching, synthetic control groups, real-world data) until optimized regimens combining several novel agents are identified and can be compared to an acceptable standard of care [23].
In this review, we outline the patient- and leukemia-associated characteristics that lend themselves to target-focused regimens and identify novel therapeutic approaches that will likely become standards of care within the next 5 years.
Cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities
While the spectrum of cytogenetic-molecular abnormalities in AML may seem complex, they are in fact relatively simple. (Table 2) The cytogenetics can be grouped in the following categories: (1) favorable cytogenetics. These include APL with the characteristic translocation 15;17 [t(15;17) (q22,q21)]; and CBF AML, with inversion 16 [inv 16(p13; q22)] or translocation 16;16 [t(16;16) (p13;q22)] and translocation 8;21 [t(8;21)(q22;q22)]; (2) intermediate cytogenetics, most commonly a diploid karyotype (about 40–50% of patients); (3) unfavorable cytogenetics with a complex karyotype, particularly with 3+ abnormalities, loss of chromosome 17p (encoding the locus for the TP53 gene), and/or translocation/inversion 3q26 (MDS1/EVI1 complex locus on chromosome 3q26.2; MECOM rearrangement); and (4) other cytogenetic/molecular abnormalities [24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. The unfavorable category varies in different trials and classifications (Table 2). Also, some subsets, such as Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-positive AML and KMT2A-rearranged AML may shift categories if the promising novel targeted agents (third-generation BCR::ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors; menin inhibitors) combined with standard chemotherapy improve their prognosis [31]. This happened with the addition of FLT3 inhibitors to standard intensive chemotherapy, which resulted in improved outcomes in FLT3-ITD AML and subsequently led to its reassignment in younger AML on intensive chemotherapy (<60 years) to the” intermediate” risk group in the most recent European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2022, regardless of the FLT3 allelic ratio or NPM1 co-mutation [28]. AML with TP53 loss (either due to a mutation or loss of chromosome 17p) or with MECOM rearrangement is associated with a particularly poor prognosis with standard chemotherapy [26].
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) detects recurrent somatic mutations in 90% of patients with AML [27, 32]. Frequently mutated genes (>5%) are FLT3, NPM1, DNMT3A, IDH1, IDH2, TET2, RUNX1, TP53, NRAS, CEBPA, WT1 [30, 32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. The frequencies of many of these mutated genes are different in younger versus older patients (e.g., FLT3 mutations more common in younger AML and TP53 mutations more common in older AML) [30]. Along AML pathways of clonal dominance and shifts, the mutations show patterns of co-occurrence or mutual exclusivity, which may help optimize the future development of more rational targeting therapies and effective target-based therapeutic combinations. Molecular aberrations in AML can be prognostic (in the setting of standard intensive chemotherapy), predictive (when therapies such as venetoclax, FLT3, IDH1/2, BCR::ABL1, and menin inhibitors are combined with standard chemotherapy), and targetable (as shown with NPM1, FLT3, IDH1/2 mutations, BCR::ABL1 fusions and KMT2A rearrangements). Understanding the significance of the cytogenetic/molecular findings and acting on that knowledge is rapidly evolving and confusing at times; hence, a simplified explanation can help make practical treatment decisions (discussed later).
The predictive significance of mutations is most valuable in the subset of patients with intermediate cytogenetics (diploid or “others”) [29, 52]. The presence of unfavorable cytogenetics (complex, chromosome 17p loss, MECOM) generally supersedes mutations. Mutations in the subset of favorable karyotypes (APL, CBF AML) may not carry an unfavorable impact (e.g., FLT3 mutations in APL; C-KIT, FLT3 or NRAS mutations in CBF AML) with modern therapeutic regimens (discussed later).
A mutation of NPM1 is considered favorable in younger patients with AML and normal karyotype [32, 33]. They respond well to high-dose cytarabine, to venetoclax-based regimens [53], to gemtuzumab ozogamicin [54] and to menin inhibitor-based combinations [35,36,37,38]. Mutations and/or deletions of the tumor suppressor gene TP53 (located on the short arm of chromosome 17) occur in 2–20% of patients, are more common in those who are older and have secondary (following an antecedent hematologic disorder) or therapy-related disease, and are associated with complex cytogenetics (90%) and poor prognosis (except the 10–15% of cases of TP53-mutated AML that have the uncommon TP53 monoallelic mutation, VAF < 20%, and diploid karyotype) [39,40,41]. In newly diagnosed AML, NRAS mutations may predict for good outcome if treated with high-dose cytarabine regimens [42, 43]. But RAS-pathway mutations (including NRAS, KRAS, PTPN11, NF1) are often clonally selected (via either mutational acquisition or clonal expansion) as a resistance mechanism in AML relapse, particularly in patients receiving low intensity therapies such as with FLT3-mutated AML on FLT3 inhibitor-based regimens, IDH-mutated AML on IDH inhibitor-based regimens, as well as after HMA-venetoclax therapy [44, 55]. Surprisingly, BCR::ABL1 fusions occasionally appear in the relapse setting after failure of targeted therapies (especially described after therapy with FLT3 inhibitors), suggesting this fusion be tested for in relapsed disease status post targeted therapy, since such patients may respond to combination therapies containing BCR::ABL1 inhibitors [45].
Among patients with a diploid karyotype, single mutations may have different predictive values than combinations [29, 46]. For example, an NPM1 mutation without a FLT3 mutation is associated with a more favorable outcome. If a FLT3-ITD mutation is present (50% of diploid karyotype with NPM1 mutation), historically the outcome was substantially worse, but is now improved with FLT3 inhibitors [47,48,49,50]. Other mutational interactions to be clarified in the context of modern regimens that incorporate targeted therapies include: NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD mutations co-occurring with one or more of following: DNMT3A, WT1, RUNX1, IDH1/2, or others.
The predictive significance of mutations is context dependent (associated mutations, AML subset, size of mutated clone, and intended therapy), and evolving as more large-scale analyses are performed. A good analogy is to consider mutations as actors in different roles and in different plays. The particular outcome of the AML/patient (play) depends on which mutations co-exist (different actors in the play or in other plays), their size or variant allelic frequency (VAF) (how big a role the actor has), and the treatment given (the creator and director/manager of the play). A few examples are illustrative. In the ELN 2022 classification, which pertains to younger/fit AML on 7 + 3 regimens, the relevant mutations are: NPM1 without FLT3 (favorable), bZIP in-frame mutated CEBPA (favorable); and ASXL1, BCOR, EZH2, RUNX1, SF3B1, SRSF2, STAG2, U2AF1, ZRSR2, TP53 (all unfavorable). This classification was not predictive of outcome in older/unfit AML on HMA-venetoclax regimens and was replaced with a proposal of a 4-gene molecular classification incorporating NRAS, KRAS, FLT3-ITD, TP53, which was confirmed independently when using HMA-venetoclax [56, 57], but not with cladribine-low dose cytarabine-venetoclax alternating with HMA-venetoclax (unpublished). In the MD Anderson studies, multivariate analyses have identified independent significant mutations after complex cytogenetics and the patient- and leukemia-associated features are considered [58,59,60]. In younger/fit AML, NPM1 mutations were favorable, and TP53 and PTPN11 mutations were unfavorable [52, 59, 61, 62]. Once FLT3 inhibitors were added to frontline regimens and allogeneic HSCT was implemented in first CR, FLT3 mutations were no longer unfavorable [47,48,49,50]. In older patients, mostly treated with low-intensity therapy, NPM1 and IDH2 mutations were favorable, and TP53 mutations were unfavorable [60] Another example is in favorable risk AML (ELN 2022), where secondary-type mutations (SRSF2, STAG2, ASXL1, EZH2, SF3B1, BCOR, U2AF1, ZRSR2) occur in 15% of patients and are associated with worse CR rate (82% versus 93%; P = 0.002) and survival (5-year rate 48% versus 68%; P = 0.0001) [63].
As the dust settles and with the implementation of more effective treatment regimens incorporating venetoclax and other targeted therapies, these predictive models will also evolve. Thus, as a cautionary statement, we highlight the currently consistent adverse factors across analyses that should be considered in clinical practice: elderly age (75–80+ years); poor performance status and organ dysfunctions; complex karyotype; and TP53 mutations (and likely also MECOM fusions and PTPN11 mutation). Important and clinically relevant mutations are highlighted in Table 3.
The significance of a mutation is impacted by the size of the mutant clone [58]. In all mutations except FLT3, the clone size is expressed as “variant allele frequency” (VAF; the ratio of the number of copies of the variant allele/total number of copies of all alleles). In FLT3-mutated AML, it has been expressed historically as FLT3 allelic ratio (AR) [28, 47, 48], which refers to the ratio of the area under the curve of FLT3-ITD divided by the area under the curve of FLT3-wild type using a semi-quantitative DNA fragment analysis [28]. This is confusing, and it is perhaps time to change the FLT3-mutated AML clone quantification to VAF, as is being applied more often in recent studies.
An inherited predisposition to leukemia may be present is as much as 10% of AML, highlighting that some mutations may be germline. Examples include Li-Fraumeni syndrome (germline TP53 mutation) and DDX41 mutation, among others. Germline mutations may be suspected either by the type (e.g., DDX41 mutation at ~50% heterozygous frequency) or when multiple cancers occur in a patient and family, or in the setting of certain genotype-phenotype associations (e.g., lifelong thrombocytopenia and a RUNX1, ANRKD26 or ETV6 mutation; recurrent infections or immunodeficiency and GATA2 or SAMD9 or SAMD9L mutations). Germline variants should be suspected when the VAF is high (>40–50%), especially if this high VAF remains stable in AML morphologic CR. The presence of a germline mutation is significant and should be evaluated because it may have therapeutic implications: ability to tolerate intensive chemotherapy in the setting of inherited bone marrow failure syndromes like Fanconi anemia or telomere biology disorders; optimal donor selection if an allogeneic HSCT is indicated; choice of therapy. For instance, in DDX41-mutated AML, the addition of venetoclax to chemotherapy improves outcome [64].
Translating the cytogenetic-molecular knowledge
Translation of this molecular knowledge to clinical practice currently should focus on the addition of FLT3 inhibitors in FLT3 -mutated AML (30%); treatment of NPM1-mutated AML (40–50% of normal karyotype) with high-dose cytarabine, HMA-venetoclax, or menin inhibitors; addition of IDH inhibitors in IDH1/2-mutated AML (20%); and treatment of KMT2A-rearranged AML with regimens that include menin inhibitors (Table 3). However, as with Philadelphia-like acute lymphoblastic leukemia, it is possible that a FLT3-like signature (40–50% of FLT3 wild-type AML) may emerge as clinically relevant and targetable with FLT3 inhibitors [65, 66], and that menin inhibitors may be effective in AML with HOXA9/MEIS1 signature (30–40%) [21, 22].
In addition to FLT3-ITD mutation, FLT3 point mutations within the tyrosine kinase domain can occur (FLT3-TKD mutations, 5–7% of AML; outcome more favorable than FLT3-ITD mutated AML; D835 most common). Midostaurin and gilteritinib, type I FLT3 inhibitors, are active against both FLT3-ITD and FLT3-TKD mutations. Sorafenib and quizartinib, type II FLT3 inhibitors, only target FLT3-ITD. Combinations of HMAs with venetoclax or enasidenib are effective in IDH2-mutated AML, although only HMA+venetoclax regimens confirmed a survival advantage in a randomized study [67, 68]. Combinations of HMAs with ivosidenib may be more effective than with venetoclax in IDH1-mutated AML [69, 70]. Building on these combinations, triple-drug regimens incorporating HMA-venetoclax with either FLT3 inhibitors or IDH1/2 inhibitors are showing positive results [71,72,73]. While associated with higher CR rates and MRD negative rates, they are also more myelosuppressive and require refining the dose schedules (such as shorter venetoclax durations based on induction Day 14 marrow results), and adjusting the doses and schedules of all agents, especially FLT3 inhibitors.
In CBF AML, mutations in c-KIT have been associated with worse outcome with 7 + 3 regimens [74], but this has not been the case with the fludarabine-cytarabine-GO-based regimens [14, 15]. It may be useful to investigate the addition of a c-KIT inhibitor (avapritinib, dasatinib) to chemotherapy as would be the use of sorafenib [75,76,77]. FLT3 mutations are common in APL (40%) and in CBF AML, and are associated with leukocytosis at presentation, but FLT3 inhibitors have not been shown to be of benefit in these two subsets.
KMT2A-rearranged AML is historically associated with a poor outcome, a high incidence of disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC) and bleeding in active disease and during induction, and high incidence of central nervous system (CNS) and extramedullary involvement [78, 79]. As noted above, its outcome may improve significantly with the use of combination therapies that incorporate menin inhibitors in frontline and salvage therapy. Current menin inhibitors under investigation include revumenib (Syndax), ziftomenib (Kura), bleximenib (JNJ-75276617; Johnson and Johnson), and enzomenib (Sumitomo) [35,36,37,38].
Measurable residual disease in complete morphologic remission
Detectable MRD in AML in morphologic CR is associated with a high relapse rate and poor survival. Methodologies used to measure MRD include: (1) multicolor flow cytometry (MFC-MRD; sensitivity 10−4); (2) reverse-transcriptase quantitative polymerase-chain reaction (RTq-PCR) assay (when optimized, sensitivity 10−5); (3) standard next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels which have variable sensitivity (usually only 1%); and (4) ultrasensitive error-corrected and mutation-specific PCR-NGS assays [80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96]. PCR is routinely used for quantitative monitoring of AML-defining translocations and mutations in APL, CBF AML, and NPM1-mutated and FLT3-mutated disease. In APL, PCR quantification of promyelocytic leukemia-retinoic acid receptor alpha (PML-RARa) may detect early molecular relapse [87]. The cytogenetic abnormalities inversion 16 and t (16;16) result in the formation of the CBF beta/myosin heavy chain 11 (CBFB/MYH11) fusion gene. The t (8;21) involves the fusion of the runt-related transcription factor 1 (RUNX1) and the runt-related transcription factor 1; translocated to 1(RUNX1T1). This creates the RUNX1/RUNX1T1 fusion gene. Detection of MRD by quantitative PCR in the form of molecular fusion genes in CBF AML (especially inversion 16) predicts for relapse [88, 89].
In other subsets of AML, MFC-MRD positive status in CR is associated with a high relapse rate (80%). However, MFC-MRD negative status is not very reassuring, since it is still associated with a relapse rate of 30–40%, even though it is often cited as a justification to avoid allogeneic HSCT in first CR. Monitoring mutational MRD by high-sensitivity RTq-PCR or error-corrected mutation-specific PCR-NGS assays (in NPM1-mutated and FLT3-mutated AML) is more informative and predictive. Molecular monitoring or NPM1 MRD in NPM1-mutated AML using RTq-PCR assay (sensitivity 10−4) was highly predictive for the risk of relapse and probability of long-term survival. (83) [97] Similarly persistence of NPM1 or FLT3-ITD mutations pre-HSCT using targeted error-coded NGS (10−4) was associated with increased relapse and worse survival among patients undergoing HSCT in first CR [96]. Recent data suggests that patients achieving NPM1 MRD clearance by RT-qPCR (10−5) after 2 courses of intensive induction chemotherapy may not benefit from HSCT in CR1 (3-year OS 79% vs 82%). Even when the analysis was restricted to NPM1-mutated patients with coexisting FLT3-ITD HSCT in first CR did not improve OS in patients with NPM1 RT-qPCR MRD clearance after two courses of intensive chemotherapy [95]. Patients with FLT3-ITD, AML and error-corrected ultra-sensitivity PCR-NGS (10−6) MRD negativity immediately pre- or post-allogeneic HSCT (peri-transplant MRD) may not benefit from post-transplant maintenance with FLT3 inhibitors such as gilteritinib [98]. Similar ultra-sensitive novel PCR-NGS assays for NPM1 mutations are now available. Importantly, the commonly available routine non-ultra-sensitive NGS molecular panels used at diagnosis to identify and monitor mutations on therapy have a low sensitivity (1–2%) and should not be relied upon for MRD assessment for decisions concerning allogeneic HSCT or maintenance therapy (also the challenge of discriminating residual clonal hematopoiesis versus residual AML MRD), although studies have shown that persistence of mutations detected by these panels at the time of CR is associated with a higher likelihood of relapse. Combining MFC and novel molecular MRD assays (RT-qPCR or ultra-sensitive PCR-NGS) may further improve the ability to predict relapse [80]. The significance of persistent DTA mutations (DNMT3A, TET2, ASXL1; i.e., mutations often associated with clonal hematopoiesis) in CR has been debated, with some suggesting persistence did not predict for relapse, and others concluding it did [80, 95].
With detection of MRD in CR comes the need to consider options for therapeutic intervention. In APL, treatment at detection of molecular relapse improved outcomes compared with intervention at hematologic relapse [87]. In CBF AML, allogeneic HSCT for persistent MRD improved survival. (82) Important interventions in MRD-positive AML may include allogeneic HSCT; regimens with intensive chemotherapy or HMAs/low-dose cytarabine (plus venetoclax and/or applicable targeted therapies [FLT3 or IDH inhibitors]); antibody therapies (e.g., CD123 or CD33 antibody-drug conjugates [ADCs]); and immune therapies (e.g., NK cellular therapy).
Treatment of AML
Subsets of AML require thoughtful selection of treatments. Figure 1A, B shows the outcomes in de novo AML (excluding APL and CBF AML) at MD Anderson from 1980 to 2023 by age among patients treated on protocol therapies. There has been a steady improvement in survival over the decades, more noticeably so in younger patients and in the last decade. Figure 1C, D shows the oucomes of patients treated on protocol or off protocol therapies, demonstrating slightly inferior overall outcomes. Off protocol therapy may be due to various reasons including the patient’s request, socioeconomic reasons, distant geographies from MD Anderson requiring continuation of therapy closer to home, insurance issues and networks, organ dysfunction (cardiac, pulmonary, hepatic, renal), and others.
Next we detail therapeutic strategies: (1) regimens for the highly curable leukemias, APL and CBF AML; (2) intensive chemotherapy regimens in younger/fit AML; (3) lower-intensity regimens in older AML (whether fit or unfit for intensive chemotherapy), and perhaps even in younger/fit patient with AML features that result in low cure rates with current intensive chemotherapy; and (4) the addition of targeted therapies (venetoclax, FLT3 inhibitors, IDH inhibitors, menin inhibitors) to standard regimens.
Acute promyelocytic leukemia
Acute promyelocytic leukemia comprises about 5–10% of AML. It is defined by the cytogenetic abnormality t (15;17), which results in the PML-RARa fusion oncogene and its encoded oncoprotein. The PML-RARa oncoprotein acts as a dominant negative inhibitor of wild-type RARa, causing a maturation block and the clinical-pathologic picture of APL.
In the 1970s, treatment with anthracyclines alone or in combination with cytarabine resulted in a cure rate of 30–40% [99, 100]. The early mortality from DIC and bleeding was significant, 10–20%. The most potent anti-APL drugs today are arsenic trioxide, followed by ATRA, GO, and anthracyclines [101,102,103]. High-dose cytarabine and maintenance chemotherapy (POMP) have modest anti-APL efficacy [99, 100].
Based on their single-agent efficacies in APL, ATRA and arsenic trioxide [102, 103] were first combined with standard chemotherapy in induction and consolidation, demonstrating improvements in overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) [104, 105]. In the late 1990s, the combination of ATRA and idarubicin (AIDA regimen) or other anthracyclines was declared a new standard of care [105].
Chemotherapy-free regimen: ATRA and arsenic trioxide
The non-chemotherapy regimen of ATRA, arsenic trioxide and GO was first investigated in 2001 at MD Anderson and reported to be highly effective [9, 11]. It was subsequently confirmed to be more effective than AIDA or other standard regimens in both high- and low-risk APL in randomized trials in Italy/Germany, England, the US, and in databases in France and Europe [10,11,12,13, 106,107,108,109]. In long-term follow-up studies, the 10-year survival rate with ATRA-arsenic is 90 + % versus 75% with AIDA. The induction mortality, mostly from DIC-associated fatal bleeding, is now 5% or less [9,10,11,12,13]. Resistant disease is extremely rare, except in molecular variants (translocations between chromosome 11 and 17 [PLZF-RARa] or between chromosomes 5 and 17).
A general approach to induction therapy is ATRA 45 mg/m2 PO daily in 2 divided doses and arsenic trioxide 0.15 mg/kg IV daily (see capped dose below). GO is added (6–9 mg/m2) in high-risk APL, defined as a WBC > 10 × 109/L at presentation or during induction. Once in CR (usually 3–4 weeks), patients are consolidated with ATRA 2 weeks on 2 weeks off for 8 months and arsenic trioxide 5 days per week for 4 weeks (20 doses) every other month for 4 courses (80 doses; total with induction, approximately 110 doses). The GO also may be added in consolidation if PCR studies demonstrate MRD-positive disease 3+ months into CR (rare; document at least twice because of the possibility of false positivity).
There are several important considerations that help optimize therapy and improve the cure rate: (1) Never use granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (filgrastim, pegfilgrastim), as APL is the one leukemia that is exquisitely and dangerously sensitive to them, and their use can result in a sudden rise in blast count and fatal DIC [110] (2) Watch for fluid overload (often confused with, and exacerbated by the “differentiation syndrome”) related to ATRA and arsenic trioxide (and the transfusion of high-volume blood products such as fresh frozen plasma to prevent the complication of consumptive coagulopathy). This can lead to a significant rate of pulmonary and multiorgan failure during induction and is managed with aggressive diuresis and by holding ATRA-arsenic trioxide therapy briefly (there should be no concern about APL progression 10–14 days into treatment, since resistant APL is rare) [111] (3) Watch for the development of a “differentiation syndrome” with possible respiratory symptoms/pulmonary and multi-organ failure; this is best prevented by using prophylactic steroids during induction (e.g. dexamethasone 10 mg IV daily x 14; with surveillance blood cultures, and antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal prophylaxis). (4) CNS leukemia is rare in APL, and its risk may increase if bleeding in the brain occurs during induction. In such patients, CNS prophylaxis with the administration of two intrathecal doses of cytarabine once in marrow CR may help prevent this rare complication. (5) In some studies, arsenic trioxide 0.15 mg/kg was used without a capped daily dose. APL has been associated with obesity, at least in the US, and we identified a rare increased incidence of renal failure in morbidly obese patients who received a daily dose of 20 mg or more [112], such that we recommend capping at 15 mg daily. In India, it is given as a flat 10 mg daily dose (for economic reasons) with great success (Dr Vikram Matthews; personal communication). (6) Watch for signs of increased intracranial pressure (severe headaches, papilledema), a rare complication of ATRA therapy. This can be successfully managed by reducing the ATRA dose, giving steroids (dexamethasone, prednisone) and acetazolamide (125–250 mg PO 2–4x daily), or placing a cerebrospinal-pleural shunt (anecdotal need in severe instances). If ATRA has to be discontinued, then GO replacement therapy (3 mg/m2 every 6 weeks x 6; total 18 mg/m2) is effective. (7) Rarely, APL can present with predominant DIC thromboses rather than bleeding events. We have observed that using idarubicin or GO can abrogate immediately the thrombotic DIC (while ATRA may worsen it).
A trial from the United Kingdom investigated a different dose schedule of arsenic trioxide consisting of 0.3 mg/kg on Days 1–5 of each course, then 0.25 mg/kg twice weekly in weeks 2–8 of Course 1 and weeks 2–4 of Courses 2–5. The daily dose is higher, but the total number of doses is lower. Reviewing the data for the occurrence of renal failure may be of interest [106].
Oral formulations of arsenic trioxide appear to be as effective as intravenous (IV) arsenic trioxide but are not yet commercially available. They would render the treatment of APL more convenient, particularly during consolidation [113, 114].
Figure 2 demonstrates the significant survival improvement in APL since the introduction of ATRA-arsenic trioxide therapy. It includes patients treated on or off protocols to provide a realistic estimate of survival in APL since some patients may encounter early DIC related issues and mortality and may not end up on protocol therapies. Also, in the longer term follow up, some patients may die from causes other than APL (older age, second cancers, other medical conditions).
Core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia
The CBF AMLs constitute about 10–15% of adult AML and 20–30% of childhood AML. The two subsets are inversion 16/ t (16;16) and t (8; 21). Inversion 16 AML is associated with eosinophilia; t (8;21) AML often expresses CD19.
Standard chemotherapy regimens with high dose-cytarabine during induction-consolidation and the addition of GO have improved the cure rate in CBF AML from <50% to 75 + % [13,14,15,16,17]. The cure rate increased from 30–40% with one high-dose cytarabine consolidation to 50 + % with 3–4 consolidations [115]. Induction-consolidation combinations with high-dose cytarabine and fludarabine and idarubicin, and with the addition of GO 3 mg/m2 x 1 during induction-consolidation (SWOG and MRC studies), resulted in 5-year survival rates of 75 + % [13,14,15,16,17]. At MD Anderson, we use fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine and GO (i.e., FLAG-GO) during induction and consolidations, for up to 7 courses (3 with GO 3 mg/m2). The results were better when GO replaced idarubicin. The FLAG-GO regimen resulted in a 5-year survival rate of 80%. (Fig. 3) [3, 15]. The MRC trials using fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine and idarubicin (FLAG-IDA) +/- GO reported similar long-term survival rates [16]. A meta-analysis of 5 studies randomizing patients to standard chemotherapy ±GO reported the addition of GO improved the 5-year survival rate from 50 to 75% [17].
Mutations in FLT3 (15–20%), c-KIT (29–30%), NRAS (15–20%), ASXL2 (15%), ASXL1 (11%), TET2 (7%) and others are common in AML; their prognostic significance depends on the treatment used. Some studies using 7 + 3 regimens have reported worse outcomes with C-KIT or multiple mutations [74, 116]. A recent Harmony database from Europe included 520 annotated cases with t (8;21) treated mostly with 7 + 3 (only 13% received GO). It reported a CR rate of 94% and a 5-year survival rate of 63%. A multivariate analysis identified a high c-KIT VAF (25 + %), FLT3-ITD and TET2 mutations to be associated with worse survival [117]. This was not the case with the FLAG-GO [14, 15]. Older patients with CBF AML are treated with adjusted-dose FLAG-GO. Patients who cannot tolerate FLAG-GO, or who have persistent molecular MRD positivity, may be offered HMA therapy (decitabine, azacitidine) and venetoclax/GO, with the treatment duration of 12+ months (tailored to MRD results). Though the data are scant, targeted therapies may also be considered (avapritinib, novel c-KIT inhibitors, or dasatinib for c-KIT mutations; FLT3 inhibitors for FLT3 mutations) [75, 76].
Younger/fit patients with acute myeloid leukemia (and older/fit for intensive chemotherapy)
The median age in AML is 68 years [118]. Most of the research with 7 + 3 and other intensive chemotherapy regimens was conducted in younger patients (usual upper age limit 60–65 years). Hence, the published literature may not reflect the results in the community practice (discussed later) [118].
The 7 + 3 anthracycline-cytarabine regimens; high-dose cytarabine consolidations
Since the discovery in the 1970s of the activity of cytarabine and anthracyclines in the treatment of AML, a series of randomized trials evaluated different doses and schedules of cytarabine (5 versus 7 versus 10 days; 100 mg/m2 versus 200 mg/m2) in combination with anthracyclines, and the addition of other agents (e.g., etoposide, lomustine, others). These established the 7 + 3 regimen (cytarabine 100–200 mg/m² continuous infusion daily for 7 days; daunorubicin 60 mg/m² intravenously [IV] daily x 3, or idarubicin 12 mg/m² IV daily x 3) as a standard of care that has persisted for half a century. Randomized trials of consolidation therapies confirmed the benefit of high dose cytarabine (3 g/m2 IV over 2–3 h twice daily x 3 days, often on Days 1, 3 and 5) [110,111,112,113]. Later studies showed cytarabine 1.5 g/m2/dose to be as effective as 3 g/m2/dose., investigated a daily dose x 5 days as an alternative schedule; and explored 4 versus 5 courses (4 courses shown to be as effective) [119]. Several studies also showed the benefit of allogeneic HSCT in first remission as better on average than consolidation strategies. The benefit of allogeneic HSCT appears to be highest in the intermediate-high risk AML subsets and depends on the MRD status prior to SCT.
Are there more effective intensive regimens than 7+3?
Several regimens, each discussed in more detail below, have incorporated modifications that have resulted in better outcomes than with 7 + 3: (1) High-dose cytarabine combination during induction; (2) daunorubicin (60-mg/m2 daily x 3, versus 45 mg/m2 or 90 mg/m2 daily x 3; or idarubicin 12 mg/m2 daily x 3; (3) addition of adenosine nucleoside analogs (fludarabine, clofarabine, cladribine) to cytarabine-anthracyclines; (4) addition of GO; (5) addition of the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax; (6) addition of FLT3 and IDH inhibitors when corresponding mutations are present; and 7) maintenance therapy with oral azacitidine.
High-dose cytarabine induction
High-dose cytarabine consolidation is an established standard of care [119,120,121,122]. Several studies evaluated high-dose cytarabine during induction. A SWOG trial in patients <65 years old compared standard-dose cytarabine (200 mg/m2 daily x 7) to high-dose cytarabine (2 g/m2 every 12 h x 12) during induction (both with daunorubicin) showed a higher 4-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate with high-dose cytarabine in patients <50 years old (RFS rate 33% versus 21%) and in patients 50–64 years old (RFS rate 21% versus 9%; p = 0.049) [121]. An Australian study in patients 60 years and younger comparing high-dose cytarabine (3 g/m2 every 12 h x 8) to standard-dose cytarabine (both with daunorubicin and etoposide induction) reported high-dose cytarabine to significantly improve the CR duration (median 45 versus 12 months; p = 0.0004) and 5-year RFS rate (49% versus 24%). (122) A meta-analysis of 3 trials comparing induction with high-dose versus standard-dose cytarabine reported high-dose cytarabine to improve the 4-year rates of RFS (p = 0.03), survival (p = 0.0005) and EFS (p < 0.0001) [123].
The EORTC-GIMEMA group randomized 1,942 younger patients (≤60 years) to receive daunorubicin plus etoposide and either high-dose cytarabine (3 g/m2 every 12 h x 8) or standard-dose cytarabine (100 mg/m2 daily x 10). They reported that in patients 15–45 years, high-dose cytarabine was associated with higher rates of CR (82% versus 76%; p = 0.01), 6-year EFS (44% versus 35%; p = 0.003), and 6-year survival (52% versus 43%; p = 0.009). In patients 45–60 years, high-dose cytarabine also resulted in significantly better CR and 6-year EFS rates, and a trend for better survival among patients with FLT3-ITD AML or poor prognosis karyotypes [124].
An Italian study randomized 574 patients (median age 52 years; range 16 to 73 years) to idarubicin-cytarabine-etoposide (ICE) or sequential idarubicin and high-dose cytarabine (2-weekly 3-day blocks of cytarabine 2 g/m2 twice daily x 2 days plus idarubicin). The latter induction resulted in a higher CR rate post Course 1 (81% versus 69%; p = 0.02), and a better 5-year survival (49% versus 39%; p = 0.045) and RFS rates (48% versus 36%; p = 0.028) [125].
In a study by Lowenberg and colleagues comparing induction therapy with high-dose cytarabine (1 g/m2 every 12 h x 10) versus standard-dose cytarabine (both with idarubicin), the outcomes were similar, possibly because both groups received high-dose cytarabine in Course 2 of the induction [126].
The SWOG-1203 trial randomized patients to: (1) 7 + 3 induction followed by four consolidations with high-dose cytarabine (3 g/m2 twice daily on Days 1, 3, and 5—total consolidation cytarabine 18 g/m2/course x 4 = 72 g/m2); (2) idarubicin plus continuous high-dose cytarabine (1.5 g/m2 continuous infusion daily x 4; total 6 g/m2; IA) followed by IA consolidations with cytarabine 0.75 g/m2 continuous infusion daily x 3 days (2.25 g/m2/course) for 4 cycles (total cytarabine 16 g/m2); (3) IA + vorinostat [127] The latter two arms, presumably testing the benefit of high-dose cytarabine induction, had lower total doses of cytarabine than in the 7 + 3 regimen. Hence, not surprisingly, the 7 + 3 regimen produced better outcomes in CBF AML. The results of 7 + 3 and the IA arms were similar in AML with intermediate or adverse karyotypes, despite the lower total cytarabine dose in IA. The trial design impeded the ability to assess the benefit of high-dose cytarabine during induction.
Addition of nucleoside analogs
Preclinical studies by Plunkett and colleagues at MD Anderson led to the development of the regimen combining fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine and idarubicin (FLAG-IDA or FAI) [128,129,130]. The MRC AML 15 trial randomized younger patients to FLAG-IDA or 7 + 3 (with or without etoposide). This FLAG-IDA regimen used cytarabine 2 g/m2 daily for 5 days, fludarabine 30 mg/m2 daily for 5 days, and idarubicin 8–10 mg/m2 daily for 3 days. Among patients who completed four courses on FLAG-IDA (2 FLAG-IDA + 2 high-dose cytarabine), the 8-year survival rate was 66% versus 47% in the 7 + 3 arm [119]. FLAG-IDA/FAI is an intensive, difficult to deliver regimen due to myelosuppression-associated side effects, but worth considering in view of a 20% advantage in the 8-year survival rate. It may be most effectively administered at specialized leukemia centers using triple antibiotic prophylaxis (anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, anti-viral) and providing the infrastructure to offer comprehensive supportive care with timely transfusion support, management of toxicities and rapid and aggressive treatment of infections/sepsis and other complications.
Even after 30+ years of investigations, the optimal high-dose cytarabine dose-schedule is still being debated. High-dose cytarabine 1.5–2 g/m2 may be as effective and less toxic than the original proposed dose of 3 g/m2 [119, 131]. The ongoing MD Anderson trials use 1.5–2 g/m2 daily x 5 (total 7.5- 10 g/m2 per course) during induction and consolidations.
Other adenosine nucleoside analogs (clofarabine, cladribine) also have been explored in combinations with standard chemotherapy. In two randomized trials, Polish investigators reported the benefit of cladribine when added to frontline 7 + 3 induction [132, 133].
In the current MD Anderson trials in younger/fit patients, we use regimens that combine idarubicin and high-dose cytarabine with adenosine nucleoside analogs (fludarabine in the FLAG-IDA regimens; cladribine in the CLIA regimens). These regimens now include venetoclax (for only 7 days during induction and 5–7 days during consolidations) in all patients without a guiding mutation, or a FLT3 inhibitors in FLT3-mutated AML (gilteritinib, quizartinib). Adding both venetoclax and a FLT3 inhibitor in FLT3-mutated patients is associated with severe myelosuppression-related complications and may increase the induction mortality. We are also exploring the potential value in the frontline setting of the IDH1/2 inhibitors in IDH1/2-mutated AML, and of the menin inhibitors in KMT2A-AML and NPM1-mutated AML. Patients with a FLT3-like signature may also benefit from the addition of quizartinib (or possibly other FLT3 inhibitors). Patients with a menin-like signature (or HOXA9/MEIS1 signature) may benefit from the addition of menin inhibitors.
Choice of anthracycline
Historically, daunorubicin 30–60 mg/m2 daily x 3 was used during induction therapy. Randomized trials showed that 90 mg/m2 daily x 3 was better than 45 mg/m2 daily x 3 (in combination with cytarabine) [7, 8]. Daunorubicin 30–45 mg/m2 daily x 3 may be substandard. Comparative trials showed that daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 daily x 3 is as effective and less toxic than 90 mg/m2 daily x 3 [134, 135].
Several randomized trials and a meta-analysis of five trials in AML comparing idarubicin to daunorubicin suggested that idarubicin (12 mg/m2 daily x 3) may be as effective or more effective. At MD Anderson, we use idarubicin 8–10 mg/m2 daily x 3 in the FLAG-IDA/CLIA regimens.
Gemtuzumab ozogamicin
This CD33 antibody-drug conjugate bound to calicheamicin has had a rough journey. It initially received accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in May 2000 for first salvage therapy of older AML based on three phase 2 studies in 142 patients with relapsed AML (response rate 30%; CR rate 16%). 136Several studies then explored lower- and fractionated-dose schedules in frontline, randomized trials (3 mg/m2 x 1 during induction and consolidation; 3 mg/m2 on Days 1, 4 and 7 during induction). The SWOG pivotal trial in the US [17], which randomized patients to 7 + 3 + /- GO, used a suboptimal daunorubicin dose (45 mg/m2 daily x 3) in the GO arm, which may have contributed to the negative overall results, and the withdrawal of GO from the US market in 2010. Four other randomized trials that matured later showed a benefit with GO, either overall or in subsets [17, 119, 136,137,138]. A meta-analysis of these five trials (3,325 patients) showed the addition of GO reduced the risk of relapse (p = 0.0001), and improved the 5-year survival rate (p = 0.01). The benefit of GO was most pronounced in AML with favorable cytogenetics (>20% improvement in 5-year survival rate from 50 to 75%, p = 0.0006; and ~5% improvement in 5-year survival rate in intermediate cytogenetics, p = 0.005). Gemtuzumab ozogamicin 3 mg/m2 was safer than 6 mg/m2 and equally effective [17]. The FDA re-approved GO at the lower dose schedules in 2017. An important research question is how to integrate GO safely into regimens such as FLAG-IDA and CLIA that are more intensive than 3 + 7 and that include venetoclax or FLT3/IDH inhibitors.
The MD Anderson approach in 2024
With 12 novel therapeutic agents approved for the treatment of AML since 2017 (including oral decitabine for MDS/CMML, which also can be used as an oral alternative to parenteral HMAs in AML), the optimal frontline therapy for younger/fit AML is evolving rapidly. The 7 + 3 regimen remains an often-used standard of care, but its results in younger and older/fit AML are suboptimal. As discussed earlier, better intensive regimens have emerged as frontline and salvage regimens that incorporate high-dose cytarabine in induction and consolidations, add nucleoside analogs and lower-dose GO (induction-consolidation in CBF and intermediate-karyotype AML) [53, 139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151]. These regimens, as well as the 7 + 3 regimens, are now including targeted therapies [152,153,154]. The investigation of other biologic signatures may lead to the inclusion of targeted therapies in other subsets (e.g., in FLT3-like and HOXA9/MEIS1 signatures).
The current MD Anderson regimens for younger/fit patients with AML are FLAG-IDA plus venetoclax and CLIA plus venetoclax (7 days during induction; 5–7 days during consolidations). In FLT3-mutated AML, FLT3 inhibitors (gilteritinib, quizartinib) are used instead of venetoclax [152,153,154]. Whether these regimens can incorporate more than one targeted therapy (such as venetoclax with GO or a FLT3 or IDH inhibitor) remains an important research question in view of the significant complications associated with myelosuppression and potential mortality. Because we use azole anti-fungals as part of triple antibiotic prophylaxis, certain dose adjustments of targeted therapies are necessary: reduce daily dose of venetoclax from 400 mg daily to 50 mg daily with posaconazole, 100 mg daily with voriconazole, 200 mg with isavuconazole; increase the dose of venetoclax to 600 mg daily with ivosidenib combinations [155, 156]. Once in CR, patients may be offered allogeneic HSCT based on the following considerations: donor availability; patient age, performance status and co-morbidities; pretreatment AML characteristics (karyotype, mutation profile); and MRD status in CR. Generally, patients are considered for allogeneic HSCT in first CR if they have intermediate- or high-risk AML based on adverse cytogenetics, FLT3-ITD/other adverse mutations, or persistent MRD. Otherwise, they continue with 4 consolidation courses and are offered maintenance therapy with HMA-venetoclax or the appropriate targeted therapy regimen (e.g FLT3 inhibitors if FLT3-mutated; IDH1 inhibitors if IDH1-mutated; IDH2 inhibitor or venetoclax if IDH2-mutated AML) (Fig. 4). Patients 50 years or older are offered induction therapy in a hospital protected environment (laminar air-flow rooms, enhanced infection precautions, no live plants/flowers, limited visitation) to reduce induction mortality (Table 4). In the community practice, similar isolation/protection strategies could be implemented [155, 156].
With this approach, the CR/marrow CR rate in non-selected younger/fit patients with AML is 80–90%, and the long-term survival rate is 50 + % (excluding AML post MDS treated with HMAs, or “treated secondary AML”) (Fig. 1). Incorporating targeted therapies (venetoclax, FLT3 inhibitors, IDH inhibitors, GO, novel CD33 monoclonal antibodies, menin inhibitors) will hopefully further improve outcomes.
Some AML subsets remain truly resistant to current chemotherapy-based strategies: treated secondary; TP53-mutated; MECOM. These constitute a significant proportion of patients (5–25%), and they should be referred to centers that offer investigational approaches and analyzed separately. Including them in current trials of AML may mask the potential value of novel strategies.
Since the 2016 and 2021 AML reviews [1, 2], many previously investigational agents are now FDA approved and utilized as standards of care in approved indications or in combination strategies that optimize their potential benefits and cost-effectiveness. Below, we summarize the novel combined targeted therapies with intensive chemotherapy and venetoclax, FLT3 inhibitors and IDH inhibitors, as frontline therapies in younger/fit AML.
Intensive chemotherapy plus venetoclax
The MD Anderson frontline trials combining FLAG-IDA and CLIA with venetoclax (7 days during induction; 5 days during maintenance) are showing positive results compared with historical data using the same intensive regimens without venetoclax: improved OS and EFS, but on average, the results are better with allogeneic HSCT in first CR, particularly in intermediate-adverse risk groups [152,153,154]. In the most recent update of CLIA-venetoclax, among 95 patients treated (median age 48 years; range 18–64 years), the CR rate was 84%, the CR+CRi rate was 95%, and the MFC-MRD negativity rate was 90%. The 3-year OS rate was 82%, and induction mortality was 1%. Allogeneic HSCT was performed in first CR in 66% of patients [153]. Triple antibiotic prophylaxis, treatment in a protected environment, prompt supportive care, and the use of growth factors as indicated are important elements that reduced the morbidity/mortality related to myelosuppression-associated complications (infections, bleeding) [153]. Other investigators have also used 7 + 3 or 5 + 2 (in older/fit patients) and reported encouraging preliminary results [157, 158].
Intensive chemotherapy plus FLT3 inhibitors
The phase III RATIFY trial (CALGB 10603) randomized 717 younger patients (<60 years; median age 48 years; range 18–59 years) with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML (FLT3-ITD 73%; FLT3-TKD 23%)to 7 + 3 +/- midostaurin [47]. The addition of midostaurin improved the CR rates (59% versus 54%; p = 0.045) and survival (median OS 74.7 versus 25.6 months; p = 0.009; estimated 5-year survival rate 50% versus 42%) [47].
The QuANTUM-First phase 3 trial screened 3,468 patients, found 864 (25%) FLT3-ITD mutated, and randomized 539 patients (62% of eligible; 16% of total) to 7 + 3 with quizartinib or placebo. The CR rates were similar (55%). The induction mortality rate was slightly higher with quizartinib (30-day mortality 6% versus 3%; p not significant). The median OS was 31.9 months versus 15.1 months (p = 0.032; HR 0.78) (3-year OS rate 50% versus 42%). The 3-year cumulative incidence of relapse was 34% versus 45% [48].
Pratz and colleagues treated 36 patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML with 7 + 3+ gilteritinib, and reported a CR rate of 83% and a 3-year OS rate of 50% (60% in patients ≤60 years) [159]. Two randomized studies of 7 + 3+gilteritinib versus 7 + 3+midostaurin are in progress in Europe and the US.
Several historical comparisons in real-world settings have also confirmed the benefits of adding FLT3 inhibitors in FLT3-mutated AML [6, 50].
Post allogeneic HSCT maintenance therapy with sorafenib or gilteritinib in FLT3-mutated AML was associated with a reduction in the relapse rate and an improvement in OS in several randomized trials, particularly among patients with PCR-NGS MRD-positive status in the period peri-HSCT [160, 161].
An important recent study randomized 284 patients (age range 18–70 years) with wild-type FLT3 (2:1) to 7 + 3 with quizartinib (n = 180) or placebo (n = 93) and reported the addition of quizartinib to improve OS: 2-year rate 63% versus 47% (p = 0.004) [65]. The same investigators later identified a FLT3-like genomic signature in 50% of patients who benefited from the addition of quizartinib, showing improvements is OS, RFS and EFS [66]. If the FLT3-like signature can be simplified and reproduced, and the reported results confirmed, then not only will the 25–30% of patients with FLT3-ITD AML benefit from quizartinib (and perhaps other FLT3 inhibitors), but up to 60–65% of patients, including those with the FLT3-like signature. Whether intensive chemotherapy + quizartinib in this “FLT3-like” population would lead to outcome benefits over and above those of intensive chemotherapy + venetoclax is an important question.
While FLT3 inhibitors have become standard of care in FLT3-mutated AML (usually in combinations), several non-targeted strategies have also improved the outcomes in this AML subset, such as chemotherapy regimens that include high-dose cytarabine, cladribine, high-dose daunorubicin, and GO [141, 162,163,164].
Intensive chemotherapy plus IDH inhibitors
Stein and colleagues treated 151 patients (median age 62 years; range 24–73 years) with de novo AML and IDH1/2 mutations with 7 + 3 and ivosidenib (IDH1-mutated AML; n = 60) or enasidenib (IDH2-mutated AML; n = 93). With 7 + 3+ivosidenib, the CR rate was 70%, the overall response rate was 78%, and the 3-year OS rate was 67%. With 7 + 3+enasidenib, the CR rate was 57%, the overall response rate was 74%, and the 3-year OS rate was 61% [165]. These outcomes are impressive when considering the median age of these patients receiving intensive chemotherapy, and that > 1/3 of patients had secondary AML [165]. The HOVON and German study groups have now completed accrual on a phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled trial comparing 7 + 3 with or without ivosidenib/enasidenib in younger/fit AML.
Intensive chemotherapy plus menin inhibitors
The MLL/KMT2A-rearranged and mutant NPM1 AML are driven by elevated expression of HOX genes, which are dependent on the menin-KMT2A interaction. This aberrant gene expression can be reversed by disrupting the binding of menin to KMT2A. Preclinical studies confirmed the efficacy of menin inhibitors in multiple subsets: KMT2A-rearranged, NPM1-mutated, NUP98-fusion, and possibly HOXA9/MEIS1 signatures. Several menin inhibitors under development: revumenib (Syndax), ziftomenib (Kura), bleximenib (Johnson & Johnson), and enzomenib (Sumitomo). Single-agent phase 1–2 studies have documented the efficacy of several of the menin inhibitors, reporting overall response rates of 40–50%. Serious side effects attributed to a differentiation syndrome (resulting in multi-organ failure and occasional deaths) have been noted with some, requiring dose interruptions/reductions, and the use of cytoreducing agents (hydroxyurea, cytarabine) and steroids. Responses with single-agent menin inhibitors are usually short, lasting 3–12 months, and resistance is often associated with the development of acquired somatic mutations in the MEN1 gene (40% of cases detected at low levels; commonly M327 and G331) that impede the interaction of the menin inhibitor with the W346 residue (key to the binding). Investigations of combinations of menin inhibitors with chemotherapy are emerging rapidly, with exciting results. Regimens combining them with fludarabine/high-dose cytarabine, 7 + 3, and lower-intensity therapies are ongoing in AML. They are also being tested in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL; with ALL-type chemotherapy) [21, 22, 36,37,38]. The more mature results from these studies are eagerly awaited to elucidate efficacy and durability, side-effects, mechanisms of resistance, and the ability of novel menin inhibitors to overcome the MEN1 mutation resistance.
Older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (or younger patients not fit for intensive chemotherapy)
Intensive chemotherapy
While the median age in AML is 68–70 years, most of the experience with 7 + 3 and other intensive chemotherapy regimens is in patients ≤60 years. Yet, the belief is that the results from cooperative trials, as poor as they are, are acceptable and reproducible in the community practice. For example, in the study by Lowenberg and colleagues investigating 7 + 3 with daunorubicin 45 mg/m2 versus 90 mg/m2 daily x 3, in 813 selected patients ≥60 years (median age 67 years), the median survival was only 7–8 months and the 3-year OS rate 20% [7]. The early mortality rate was 11–12%. At MD Anderson, intensive chemotherapy regimens used historically in older patients (60–65 years or older) resulted in CR rates of 40–50%, 4–8 week mortality of 26–36%, and median survival of 4–6 months (1-year survival <30%) [166, 167]. By multivariate analysis, factors independently associated with early mortality with intensive chemotherapy were: age 75+ years; complex karyotype (3+ chromosomal abnormalities); antecedent hematologic disorder; poor performance status (ECOG 2–4); creatinine >1.3 mg/dl; and treatment outside of a protected environment. The expected 8-week mortality was 10–19% with 0–1 adverse factors, and 36–65% with 2–5 adverse factors [166]. In the SEER 2010–2017 data, reflective of the community practice, the 4-week mortality was 24% in patients 60–69 years old and the 5-year survival was 18%. In patients 70+ years (45% of all AML), the 4-week mortality rate was 44% and the 5-year survival rate was only 4% [118] While 7 + 3 remains a standard of care, and supportive care/hospice was a common recommendation in more than 2/3 of patients before 2000, neither approach is good.
Today, older AML is likely the most difficult leukemia to treat: patients have multiple co-morbidities (cardio-pulmonary, hepatic, and renal dysfunction; hypertension; diabetes), poor performance status and intolerance to intensive chemotherapy In addition, the disease biology (high incidences of complex karyotype, TP53 mutations, and secondary/therapy-related AML) is resistant to the current standard intensive chemotherapy. What is the solution?
Epigenetic and low-intensity therapy
In the 1990 s, lower-intensity strategies emerged as potential therapies in older/unfit AML. These included low-dose cytarabine, HMAs, and targeted therapies (monoclonal antibodies; more recently, FLT3 inhibitors and IDH 1/2 inhibitors). The question then is—What is younger/fit versus older/unfit AML? In clinical practice, oncologists often use the “oculometric approach” (evaluating the patient and deciding subjectively, based on intuition, experience, and perception of the patient’s condition). At MD Anderson, we use the early-mortality risk model detailed above to select older patients who are unfit for intensive chemotherapy, and we consider an early mortality rate above 10% too high for intensive chemotherapy [59, 60]. We have also shown over time, and with the addition of venetoclax to lower-intensity therapy, that such regimens may result in equal or superior efficacy compared with intensive chemotherapy, not only in older/unfit AML, but also in older AML regardless of fitness [168, 169]. An important question for the future is whether such lower-intensity combination regimens (lower-intensity chemotherapy plus one or more targeted therapies) could replace intensive chemotherapy regimens in selected younger patients [170].
A fraction of patients who present without fever and with normal chest radiographs may have significant abnormalities on computed tomography (CT) scans (e.g., infections, fluid overload, bleeding, nodular lesions suggestive of fungal pneumonia or other pathologies) [171]. Patients with AML and either pneumonia or another pulmonary pathology at diagnosis who receive intensive chemotherapy have a higher risk of induction mortality [59]. A routine pretreatment chest CT may help deciding more objectively on the treatment approach. In addition, a pretreatment measurement of the cardiac ejection fraction (echocardiogram, cardiac scan) will assess a potential cardiac co-morbidity (low ejection fraction) that would favor lower intensity therapy over intensive chemotherapy.
Historically, older patients (age ≥70) with AML were often offered palliative or hospice care [172]. The MRC AML14 randomized trial showed that, compared with hydroxyurea/supportive care, low-dose cytarabine 20 mg subcutaneously twice daily x 10 days was associated with a higher CR rate (18% versus 1%; p = 0.00006) and with longer survival (odds ratio: 0.60; p = 0.0009) [173]. This study delivered the important message that an effective anti-AML treatment could reduce early mortality (the mixed result of both active disease and poorly tolerated chemotherapy) and prolong survival, even in patients considered historically to be only suitable for hospice/ supportive care. In 1992, we began developing the concept of epigenetic therapy in leukemia at MD Anderson, repurposing the dose schedule of decitabine in investigator-initiated studies. In the 2000s, single-arm and randomized trials with HMAs (decitabine; azacitidine [developed independently by Lewis Silverman and colleagues]) demonstrated the benefits of both in higher-risk MDS (regulatory approval) and in older/unfit AML (decitabine approved in Europe, but not in the US) [174, 175]. The phase 3 randomized trial in older AML (patients ≥65 years) of decitabine 20 mg/m2 IV daily x 5 every month versus supportive care or low-dose cytarabine resulted in median survivals of 7.7 months versus 5 months (p = 0.036). This led to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval of decitabine for the treatment of older patients with AML [174]. The phase 3 randomized trial (AZA-AML-001) of azacitidine (n = 241) versus three conventional regimens (n = 247; low-dose cytarabine, intensive chemotherapy, supportive care) showed a longer survival with azacitidine (median 10.4 versus 6.5 months; p = 0.06; hazard ratio 0.85) [175].
Extended schedules of decitabine (20 mg/m2 daily x 10) [176] are being explored, as well as combinations of HMAs with targeted therapies (venetoclax; FLT3, IDH, and menin inhibitors; CD123 antibody-drug conjugates; others) in couplets and, more recently, in triplets. A highly absorbable oral formulation of decitabine plus oral cedazuridine (cytosine deaminase inhibitor; oral combination bioequivalent to intravenous decitabine) has been approved as an alternative to parenteral HMAs therapy in MDS and CMML [20] Oral decitabine combinations with other oral targeted therapies offer the future possibility of fully oral combination therapy (e.g., oral decitabine + venetoclax+ other oral targeted therapies) in both frontline and salvage AML. Such therapies could conceivably be delivered in the outpatient setting, improving the patient quality of life and reducing the costs associated with hospitalization and frequent clinic visits for treatment. The oral decitabine (and, perhaps soon, highly absorbable oral azacitidine) must be distinguished from the currently approved oral azacitidine (only 10–15% absorption; approval as 300 mg twice daily x 14 days, every month), which is indicated only as maintenance therapy in patients with AML in first CR who cannot undergo allogeneic HSCT or complete the full curative consolidation therapy (discussed later) [18].
Prior to the discovery of the efficacy of the HMA-venetoclax regimens in AML, MD Anderson investigators developed “triple-nucleoside” lower-intensity regimens that showed favorable efficacy and safety in older AML. The regimens combined an adenosine nucleoside analog (clofarabine or cladribine) with low-dose cytarabine, and alternated this with decitabine [177,178,179]. Among 248 patients treated (median age 69; range 48–85 years), the overall response rate was 66%, the early (4-week) mortality rate was 2%, the median OS was 12.5 months, and the 2-year OS was 29%. In normal-karyotype AML, the median OS was 19.9 months and the 2-year OS rate was 45% [179]. Other investigators reported the benefit of such regimens in AML frontline and salvage therapy (the latter with venetoclax) [180, 181]. Venetoclax is now added to this combination in what is referred to as the “triple-nucleosides-venetoclax” lower-intensity regimen (discussed later).
Hypomethylating agents plus venetoclax in older/unfit AML
One targeted therapeutic strategy in leukemia involves the activation of the intrinsic or mitochondrial pathway of apoptosis, regulated by the BCL2-family of proteins. This pathway involves a dynamic balance between pro-apoptotic (Bak, Bax) and anti-apoptotic proteins (BCL2, BCL-XL, MCL-1). In a balanced state, the anti-apoptotic proteins bind to, and sequester the pro-apoptotic proteins, thus preventing them from triggering apoptosis. The anti-apoptotic proteins are overexpressed in many cancers, including leukemia. Small-molecule “BH3-mimetics” were developed that could bind to the anti-apoptotic proteins in the BH3 domain and liberate pro-apoptotic proteins. The earlier generation of BH3-mimetics bound efficiently to multiple anti-apoptotic proteins but were associated with unacceptable toxicities, including thrombocytopenia.
Venetoclax (BCL2 inhibitor) was developed as a more selective BH3-mimetic that retained affinity for BCL2, but not for BCL-XL or MCL-1. It has revolutionized the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and is being explored in other tumors (ALL, MDS and CMML, lymphoma and myeloma subsets). The AML blasts and stem cells depend on BCL2 for survival, but normal hematopoietic stem cells depend on MCL-1. This presented the rationale for investigating venetoclax in AML. The preclinical studies demonstrated the anti-AML activity of venetoclax [182]. The trial of single-agent of venetoclax in refractory-relapsed AML showed only modest activity [183], but the single-arm frontline combination trials of HMA-venetoclax showed high efficacy, which led to the phase 3 randomized trials that resulted in the regulatory approval of this combination as a treatment for older/unfit AML [184,185,186,187,188].
The VIALE-A pivotal trial randomized (2:1) 431 older/unfit patients ( ≥ 75 years; or unfit for intensive chemotherapy) to azacitidine plus venetoclax (n = 286) or azacitidine (n = 184). The addition of venetoclax was associated with a significantly longer survival (median survival 14.7 versus 9.6 months; p < 0.001), as well as higher composite remission (CR/CRi)rate (66.4% versus 28.3%; p < 0.001) and CR rate (29.7% versus 17.9%; p < 0.001) [186]. The longer follow-up on the study reported 3-year survival rates of 25% with azacitidine/venetoclax versus 10% with azacitidine [187]. A similar randomized study (211 patients; 2:1 randomization) of low-dose cytarabine with venetoclax versus low-dose cytarabine alone showed a median survival of 8.4 versus 4.1 months (p = 0.04), an overall response rate of 48% versus 13% (p < 0.001), and a CR rate of 27% versus 7% (p < 0.001) [188].
A single-arm trial from our institution investigated the use of decitabine for a 10-day induction with venetoclax (followed by maintenance with monthly decitabine for 5 days and venetoclax for 14–21 days). Among 70 older patients (median age 72 years; range 70–78 years) with newly diagnosed de novo AML, the overall response rate (CR+CRi) was 84%, the CR rate 67%, the 4-week mortality 0%, and the median survival 18.1 months. It appears that, on average, decitabine 10-day regimens may not offer much better outcomes than 5-day regimens [189].
The original HMA-venetoclax trials used a continuous 28-day schedule of venetoclax, but many patients required venetoclax duration reductions to 14–21 days and often 5–6 week cycle lengths with GCSF support. Recent studies have suggested that shorter dose schedules (7–14 days) may be as effective and less toxic [190,191,192] This will allow for safer designs of the triplet regimens (discussed later).
Lower-intensity therapy with “triple-nucleosides” plus venetoclax
One of the current frontline trials in older (and younger unfit) AML at MD Anderson explores the triple-nucleoside combination of cladribine-cytarabine-venetoclax alternating with azacitidine (or decitabine)-venetoclax [193, 194]. Among 141 patients treated so far (median age 68 years; range 47–84 years), 103 (73%) achieved CR, and 120 (85%) achieved CR-CRi. An MRD-negative status was noted in 93 patients (78%). Two patients (1%) died within 4 weeks of induction and 4 (3%) died within 8 weeks. The 4-year survival rate was 52% overall, 79% for patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT and 42% among those who did not.
Herein a note of concern: It took more than 2 decades to establish HMAs as a reasonable approach for older/unfit AML, and a decade to move from HMA single-agent therapy to the combination of HMA-venetoclax, and to discuss the value of intensive chemotherapy versus lower-intensity therapy [195]. While the latter is a now standard of care, it is a poor one (3-year survival rate 25%). Attempts to explore the cladribine/low-dose cytarabine +/- venetoclax regimens (without combining them with HMA-venetoclax) have started. The triple-nucleoside-venetoclax regimen has not been investigated yet outside MD Anderson. We hope it will not take another decade to establish or reject it as a regimen in AML.
Doublet versus triplet regimens
Doublet combinations of HMAs and FLT3 or IDH inhibitors showed favorable results [67, 69, 196, 197]. Preclinical studies reported a synergistic efficacy of the combination of FLT3 inhibitors and venetoclax. This led to triplet regimens combining HMAs, venetoclax, and FLT3 inhibitors. Among 30 older patients (median age 71 years) with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML, the combination of azacitidine (7 days induction; 5 days consolidation), venetoclax (14 days induction, 7 days maintenance) and gilteritinib 80 mg daily (14 days induction; 80 mg daily maintenance) resulted in a CR rate of 90%, an MRD-negativity rate of 93% in responders, and a 1.5 year survival rate of 72% [73] The regimen was myelosuppressive, requiring limiting the induction days of venetoclax-gilteritinib to 14 days, and reducing venetoclax to 7 days/cycle in maintenance, as well as adjusting the gilteritinib dose to 80 mg daily. The future challenge is to develop potentially more curative quadruplet regimens that can be delivered safely and that incorporate HMA-venetoclax with FLT3 and IDH inhibitors/menin inhibitors/CD123 antibodies/NK antibodies or NK cellular therapy. This is possible if studies continue to suggest that 7 days of venetoclax is as effective as longer-duration venetoclax schedules in such combinations.
Combinations of HMAs and IDH inhibitors have shown encouraging results in frontline older AML. While the HMA-venetoclax combination is particularly effective in IDH2-mutated AML, ivosidenib may be preferred over venetoclax in IDH1-mutated AML [69, 186, 198]. In the subset analysis of VIALE-A of IDH2-mutated AML (40 patients on azacitidine-venetoclax, 18 patients on azacitidine), the median OS was 27.5 months vs 13.0 months with azacitidine alone (p < 0.05) [68]. Comparably, the combination of azacitidine-enasidenib resulted in a median survival rate of 22 months, although no different than azacitidine alone (median OS of 22 months) in the frontline 2:1 randomized (but not blinded) trial of azacitidine-enasidenib versus azacitidine alone [67]. In the subset analysis of VIALE-A of IDH1-mutated AML (23 patients on azacitidine-venetoclax, 11 patients on azacitidine), long-term follow up demonstrates the median OS was only 10.2 months with venetoclax versus 2.2 months [68]. In the AGILE study, 146 patients (median age 76 years) with older/unfit IDH1-mutated AML were randomized (1:1) to azacitidine-ivosidenib (n = 72) or azacitidine (n = 74). The CR rate was 47% versus 15% (p< .0001). The median survival was 29 months versus 7.9 months (p = 0.001) [199].
Triplet regimens combining HMAs with venetoclax and IDH inhibitors are ongoing and yielding exciting results. In a study of oral decitabine, venetoclax and the appropriate IDH1/2 inhibitor, among patients with newly diagnosed IDH-mutated AML treated (10 IDH1-mutated, 14 IDH2-mutated), the CR rate was 90–100%, the MRD-negativity rate was 80–93%, and the 1.5-year survival rate was 75%. In such regimens, because of the interaction of ivosedenib and venetoclax (ivosidenib is a CYP inducer, reducing the venetoclax AUC) the dose of venetoclax was increased to 600 mg daily (if no azole prophylaxis) [70].
Older patients (≥65 years) and patients not fit for intensive chemotherapy (based on predicted high early mortality) should be considered for lower-intensity strategies, for example combinations of cladribine and low-dose cytarabine alternating with decitabine (favoring oral decitabine for convenience) or azacitidine, together with venetoclax; and other triplet regimens of HMAs plus venetoclax-based combinations that also incorporate FLT3 inhibitors (if FLT3-mutated), IDH inhibitors (if IDH-mutated), menin inhibitors (if KMT2A-rearranged or NPM1-mutated), and other targeted /immune investigational agents (Table 4).
Menin inhibitors—beyond single agents
In older AML with KMT2A-rearrangement, NPM1 mutation and NUP98 fusions, frontline studies are exploring the value of menin inhibitor-based combinations. In a study of oral decitabine-venetoclax with revumenib in refractory-relapsed AML with KMT2A rearrangement, NPM1 mutation or NUP98r fusion (median 3 prior lines of therapy), all 9 patients treated achieved a response [200]. This study is now part of the frontline approaches in older AML with these abnormalities [35,36,37,38]. Another study reported on 26 patients with newly diagnosed KMT2A-rearranged (35%) or NPM1-mutated AML (65%) (median age 70 years; range 60–85 years) treated with azacitidine for 7 days every month, venetoclax daily, and revumenib 113–163 mg daily. Overall, 18/26 patients (69%) achieved CR and 23/26 (88%) achieved a composite CR. MRD-negative status in CR was documented in 22/26 (85%). The estimated 1-year OS was 62% (3 relapses; 6 deaths).(38) A third study treated 60 patients with refractory-relapsed AML (KMT2A-rearrangement 50%, NPM1 mutation 50%; 2 median prior lines of therapy) with azacitidine for 7 days/month, bleximenib daily, and venetoclax daily. Among 34 patients treated with bleximenib 50+mg twice daily, 27 /34 (79%) had an overall response, and 14/34 (41%) had a CR-CRh-I [37].
CPX-351 in older AML
CPX-351 is a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation containing a fixed 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin. Based on the preclinical and phase 1–2 trials in the subset of secondary AML, a pivotal phase 3 trial in newly diagnosed secondary AML randomized 309 patients to CPX-351 or 7 + 3. Therapy with CPX351 was associated with a significantly longer survival (hazard ratio 0.69; p = 0.005), and with higher rates of CR (38% versus 26%; p = 0.035) and CR+CRi (48% versus 33%; p = 0.016). More patients achieving CR post CPX-351 underwent allogeneic HSCT (20% versus 12%); their survival was also longer post SCT. This resulted in the FDA approval of CPX-351 as frontline therapy for secondary AML [19]. Ongoing studies are investigating combinations of CPX-351 with venetoclax, GO, and other targeted therapies.
Maintenance therapy in acute myeloid leukemia
While maintenance therapy is an established approach in many cancers (including ALL), older studies did not report a benefit in AML until the recent positive trial with oral azacitidine (CC-486; poorly absorbed; AUC 10–15% of intravenous azacitidine). In QUAZAR AML-001, 472 older patients (≥55 years; median age 68 years) with AML in first CR for <4 months and not eligible for an intensive curative strategy (allogeneic HSCT; high-dose cytarabine consolidations) were randomized to oral azacitidine 300 mg orally daily x 14 every month (n = 238), or placebo (n = 234). The median survival was 24.7 months with oral azacitidine versus 14.8 months with placebo (hazard ratio 0.69; p = 0.0009). This resulted in its FDA approval in 2020 as maintenance therapy for this indication [18].
The HOVON97 trial randomized 116 older patients ( ≥ 60 years) in CR post two courses of intensive chemotherapy to azacitidine (50 mg/m2 subcutaneously daily x 5/monthly for 12 cycles; n = 56) or observation (n = 60). The 12-month DFS rate was 64% versus 42% (p = 0.04) [201].
At MD Anderson, patients not eligible for allogeneic HSCT in first remission and with expected suboptimal outcome are offered maintenance therapy with HMA (usually oral decitabine) and venetoclax. In an ongoing phase 2 trial, in which we treated 25 patients with newly diagnosed AML in CR (not candidates for allogeneic HSCT) with azacitidine-venetoclax, the 2-year RFS rate was 65% [202]. Other targeted therapies are also considered as indicated by the molecular profile (FLT3, IDH1/2 and menin inhibitors at present).
Maintenance therapy post allogeneic HSCT using FLT3 inhibitors in FLT3-mutated AML (particularly If MRD-positive in the peri-HSCT period), or with HMA +/- venetoclax in other patients, is gaining ground. Post HSCT maintenance with other targeted therapies such as IDH and menin inhibitors, or with immune therapies such as multiple donor lymphocyte infusions or NK therapy, are being investigated.
Translating the published literature into real-world experience
The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data give a better reflection of the results in US community practice. A SEER analysis of about 29,000 patients with AML showed that the outcomes are worse than those reported from single-institution and cooperative studies. This may be attributable to several factors such as the meticulous selection of patients on clinical trials (exclusion of patients who are older, those with treated secondary AML, or those with poor performance status and organ dysfunctions), the kind of regimens offered (standards of care versus investigational), the supportive care infrastructures, and the leukemia expertise. The SEER data does show significant improvements in patient outcome since 2000 in certain subsets: APL (5-year survival about 60+ %; incorporation of ATRA and arsenic trioxide into the APL regimens); CBF AML (5-year survival 50 + %; addition of GO and high-dose cytarabine plus monitoring for MRD by PCR); younger patients (addition of several targeted therapies, improved supportive care measures). However, even in the newer era (2000–2017), the 4-week mortality in patients 40–59 years with de novo AML (excluding APL and CBF AML) is 27%, and the 5-year survival rate is 40%. Among patients ≥70 years, the 4-week mortality rate is 45–50%, and the 5-year survival rate is <5% [118].
Unlike the common solid tumors, AML is a relatively rare cancer. Since it involves the bone marrow, it causes severe compromise of normal hematopoiesis, myelosuppression, and life-threatening complications such as infections and bleeding. Its treatment is complex, particularly intensive in younger patients, and requires long-term expertise and familiarity with the disease and complications, as well as the availability of prompt supportive care measures. The particularities of AML require the use of triple antibiotic prophylaxis; ready access to transfusion of blood products; prompt availability of skilled emergency facilities; quick recognition of infections and sepsis in order to implement optimal broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics; and the timely use of the intensive care unit when needed. Thus, the risks of serious morbidities, mortality and treatment abandonment are high [203].
While it has long been assumed that the care of AML can be delivered as optimally in the oncology community practices as in leukemia centers of expertise, this may not be the case for the reasons detailed above. The SEER data and several AML cooperative trials report rates of early mortality (at 4 or 8 weeks) with induction therapy that vary significantly, both in younger and older AML. Several studies have reported significantly different early mortality rates in patients treated in non-academic versus academic centers, and in non-NCI-designated versus NCI-designated cancer centers [204] In the National Cancer Database of 60,738 patients with AML, the 4-week mortality rate was 16% in academic centers and 29% in non-academic centers (p < 0.001); the 5-year survival rates were 25% and 15%, respectively (p < 0.001) [204]. A study from California in 7007 patients with AML reported an early mortality rate of 12% in NCI-designated cancer centers versus 24% in non-NCI-designated cancer centers [205]. At our institution, the early mortality with intensive chemotherapy in younger AML is less than 5%; the early mortality with low-intensity regimens in older AML is 1–2%.
Because of the circumstances outlined above (rarity, marrow compromise, intensity of care, supportive care needs, cumulative expertise), and the rapidly evolving knowledge and treatment strategies, we believe AML may be better managed in specialized leukemia centers rather than in the oncology community practice.
Allogeneic and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
The benefit of allogeneic HSCT in AML first CR was difficult to demonstrate in earlier randomized trials because of: (1) the limited number of patients in each study (may not detect modest but significant benefits); (2) the lead-time bias to allogeneic HSCT; (3) the fact that many patients allocated to HSCT ultimately could not undergo it (due to infections, organ dysfunction, morbidities, AML relapse, etc); (4) patients allocated to chemotherapy in first CR may have benefited from undergoing the HSCT post first relapse. A meta-analysis of multiple randomized trials demonstrated, on average, a significant survival benefit in performing allogeneic HSCT in first remission [206]. A study by the MRC reported that the survival with chemotherapy versus allogeneic HSCT in first CR was similar when the benefit of a later HSCT was considered [207].
Allogeneic HSCT should be considered as an optimal option in first CR (1) in patients who do not have favorable-risk AML (exclude CBF, NPM1-mutated without other high-risk mutations, and other favorable risk subsets being defined over time); (2) patients with AML in morphologic CR but persistent MRD. With the availability of venetoclax, FLT3 and IDH inhibitors, and possibly other targeted therapies such as menin inhibitors, the role of allogeneic HSCT in first remission needs to be re-evaluated continuously. Additional considerations for the feasibility of HSCT are the patient age and co-morbidities, donor availability, degree of matching, center expertise/results with HSCT, and patient wishes.
Allogeneic HSCT is not a one-time self-contained procedure, but part of the continuum approach during which the physician considers chemotherapy, targeted therapy, HSCT, post HSCT maintenance. Multiple strategies are being evaluated post allogeneic HSCT to reduce the risk of relapse, including HMA-venetoclax, FLT3 and IDH inhibitors, menin inhibitors, repeated sequential DLIs, and other forms of immunotherapy.
Autologous HSCT has been largely abandoned in in AML in the US (except in APL and CBF AML in second CR) because of the lack of demonstrable benefit in randomized trials. It continues to be used in Europe as an equivalent alternative to multiple chemotherapy consolidations in first CR. A recent update of the PETHEMA Spanish data of 1300 patients with AML in first CR who underwent autologous SCT (n = 658 patients) or further chemotherapy (n = 652) showed a benefit for autologous SCT in younger patients ( < 65 years) with a median OS of 153 months versus 71 months (HR 0.72; P = 0.02) [208]. Recognizing, based on recent deeper MRD detection measures (PCR-NGS for NPM1 and FLT3 mutations), that many previously infused autologous cells were contaminated with AML residual disease that might have contributed to relapse, future research may investigate autologous HSCT using MRD-negative infusions as an alternative to multiple chemotherapy consolidations-maintenance, or to allogeneic HSCT. At our institution, autologous HSCT is still considered occasionally in APL and CBF AML in second CR and with negative molecular MRD in collected stem cells.
Salvage therapy
Salvage therapies are multiple in refractory-relapsed AML, and their rates of success/cure depend on the context, including the AML type, prior therapies, prior HSCT, duration of first CR, and the definition of refractoriness.
Salvage therapy in APL (using longer durations of ATRA and arsenic trioxide ±chemotherapy or autologous HSCT) is associated with a high cure rate [209]. Cure rates may also be significant following salvage therapy in CBF-AML (fludarabine/high-dose cytarabine, GO, autologous or allogeneic HSCT) and in AML with relapse following a long first CR duration (2–3 years).
The outcome in non-APL/CBF salvage is very much context dependent. For example, patients are sometimes labeled to have refractory AML based on a Day 14–21 marrow that shows persistent disease after 7 + 3. Such patients may have residual disease that continues to respond to treatment and resolves on later marrow analyses or may respond effectively to salvage therapy and later allogeneic SCT. Patients who relapse after 2+ years of a first CR have a cure rate of 30–50% with effective salvage therapy. In contrast, patients who are resistant to frontline FLAG-IDA-venetoclax or CLIA-venetoclax, or those who relapse after 7 + 3 with a first CR duration < 6–12 months have a cure rate of 20% or less [210].
Some patients relapse with targetable clones (FLT3- or IDH- mutated AML) that may not have been addressed with prior regimens. Combinations of targeted therapies plus standard chemotherapy followed by allogeneic HSCT may also result in reasonable cure rates. It is thus essential to repeat genomic analysis at relapse, as clonal selection is common during treatment resistance, and resistant new clones may emerge that were not apparent at initial diagnosis (e.g., new FLT3, IDH1/2, or BCR::ABL1 clones).
Often forgotten is the experience that the best curative therapy in AML salvage is allogeneic HSCT in active disease, when the AML burden is minimal (marrow blasts < 20%). Such a strategy may result in a cure rate of 10–20%. But transplant experts do not like these odds, and often reject such patients for allogeneic HSCT, unless they can achieve CR/MRD-negative status (frequently almost impossible), because of the associated low cure rate/high mortality rate. And accepting such patients may tarnish the reputation of the transplantation center (and lead to its exclusion from insurance networks) [211].
The more common scenario in AML salvage is a patient who is referred with truly resistant AML following effective frontline therapy, with high-risk disease (complex karyotype, TP53 or other adverse mutations), no targetable mutations and short first CR duration. Such patients may be considered good candidates for investigational therapies, or reasonably be offered supportive/hospice care.
Based on the above discussion, the choice of salvage therapy in AML depends on multiple factors: patient age and wishes, co-morbidities, salvage status, prior therapies, duration of prior response, exposure to allogeneic HSCT, leukemia characteristics, and availability of investigational therapies. Since AML experts and leukemia centers of expertise have different guidelines and pathways in AML salvage, we will restrict our discussion to those at MD Anderson, and address some approved therapies.
Patients in relapse are always evaluated for emerging or persistent targetable mutations or abnormalities amenable to novel therapies (FLT3, IDH1/2 or menin inhibitors). If such mutations/abnormalities are noted (FLT3 mutations, IDH1/2 mutations, translocation 11q32, NPM1 mutations, NUP98 fusion), patients are considered for investigational combinations that incorporate the corresponding targeting strategies, for example HMA-venetoclax-FLT3 inhibitors, HMA-venetoclax-IDH1/2 inhibitors, HMA-venetoclax-menin inhibitors.
In young/fit patients with AML and failure to respond to or relapse post 7 + 3 regimens, salvage therapy depends on the duration of first CR. If less than 1 year, we offer HMA-venetoclax-based regimens that incorporate an additional investigational agent (antibodies, others). If longer than 1 year, we offer intensive chemotherapy with FLAG-IDA-venetoclax or CLIA-venetoclax. Several studies, including some at MD Anderson, have shown these regimens to result in high CR rates, to bridge safely to allogeneic HSCT, and to offer a reasonable chance of a cure [145,146,147, 212]. Patients in second salvage or beyond are offered phase 1–2 investigational approaches, or supportive care/hospice.
All patients achieving a subsequent CR or even persistent minimal disease (marrow blasts < 20%) should be offered immediate allogeneic HSCT, provided they are cognizant of the potential low cure rates and risks of the procedure, including high risk of mortality and relapse.
An interesting study from Germany attracted a lot of interest [213]. In this phase 3 trial, 281 patients (median age 61 years; range 18–75 years) with AML refractory to one course of frontline intensive chemotherapy (n = 183; which may have enriched for patients with residual sensitive disease post 14–28 days of 7 + 3) or in first relapse (n = 98), were randomized to reinduction with intensive chemotherapy (mitoxantrone plus high-dose cytarabine) followed by allogeneic HSCT in remission (n = 141), or “disease control” and immediate allogeneic HSCT (n = 140). The study showed similar outcomes in both arms: 4-year OS rate 49% versus 46%. What may not have been noticed was that the immediate allogeneic HSCT group received additional therapy with fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine and amsacrine (FLAMSA) on days −12 to −9, followed by fludarabine-alkylator-based reduced intensity conditioning before HSCT (essentially a double intensive/ablative regimen). Along these lines, we are investigating a regimen of sequential intensive chemotherapy, with the application of allogeneic HSCT, often with haplo-identical donors (more readily available, less delays) at the time of marrow aplasia (Day 21–35 of chemotherapy) rather than after achievement of CR (low probability; <10–20% in most situations).
Expanding on topics of interest in AML
Antibodies targeting AML surface molecules
Antibodies targeting cluster designation (CD) surface molecules CD33, CD123, CD70, CLL1 (or CLEC12a), TIM3, WT1 and others, may have anti-AML efficacy. These antibodies may be unconjugated; conjugated to immunotoxins; or bispecific antibodies directing killer CD3 T-cells or NK cells to different AML surface markers. Unconjugated monoclonal antibodies have shown minimal or no benefit. Monoclonal antibodies conjugated to immunotoxins, however, have shown good efficacy; for example, GO targeting CD33; tagraxofusp (SL401) and pivekumab sunirine (IMGN632) targeting CD123 in blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN). Combinations of pivekumab sunirine or tagraxofusp with standard chemotherapy are ongoing in AML [214]. Among 50 patients with older/unfit AML treated with pivekumab sunirine and azacitidine-venetoclax, 54% achieved CR; the composite CR rate was 68% [215].
Studies are also evaluating the delivery of radioisotopes using antibodies that target AML surface antigens. The most advanced among them is the use of CD45-targeted antibodies (e.g., Iomab-B or 90Y-BC8-DOTA). As CD45 is ubiquitously expressed in the hematopoietic system, CD45-targeting may lead to significant myeloablation; hence, these studies are being done as part of pre-HSCT conditioning in transplant-eligible patients. An ongoing randomized phase 3 trial is evaluating Iomab-B versus investigator choice salvage therapy prior to HSCT in relapsed-refractory AML [216, 217].
The bispecific T-cell engaging (BiTE) antibody constructs recruit CD3-effector T cells or NK cell to target AML cells (CD33, CD123, CD70). These include AMG330, AMG673, AMG427, XmAb14045, AMV564, SAR443579 (CD123-NK engager) and others. Several have shown some activity (response rates 20% to 30%) but were associated with serious side-effects (cytokine release syndrome with fever). They may ultimately show a good benefit in AML in CR with MRD-positive disease.
CAR-T cellular therapy in AML
The tremendous success of immunotherapy in cancer (checkpoint inhibitors in solid tumors; chimeric antigen receptor [CAR]-T cellular therapy in ALL, lymphoma and myeloma) led to interest in developing similar immune therapies in AML. The studies with checkpoint inhibitors did not demonstrate improved efficacies and were associated with serious toxicities (organ “itis”). Trials with autologous and allogeneic CAR-T cells (targeting CD123, CD33 and CLL1), and with NK cellular therapies, are ongoing. However, multiple studies of such cellular therapies in AML have not produced clear positive trends so far.
Summary
Several therapeutic strategies discussed as promising investigational approaches in the previous two AML reviews of 2016 and 2021 are therapeutic realities in 2024 and are used in standard-of-care therapeutic regimens in both frontline and later-line AML: GO, venetoclax, FLT3 inhibitors (midostaurin, gilteritinib, quizartinib), IDH inhibitors (ivosidenib, enasidenib, olutasidenib), oral decitabine and oral azacitidine. Others have fallen by the wayside, as is expected in cancer research (APR246, magrolimab). And yet, others, surprisingly and unexpectedly, are emerging with force, for example the promising novel (yet still investigational at the time of this writing) menin inhibitors. The wealth of positive data will continue to reshuffle what is, or what might soon become, a new standard of care (induction, consolidation, HSCT, maintenance) in younger and older patients with AML.
References
Kantarjian H. Acute myeloid leukemia-major progress over four decades and glimpses into the future. Am J Hematol. 2016;91:131–45.
Kantarjian H, Kadia T, DiNardo C, Daver N, Borthakur G, Jabbour E, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia: current progress and future directions. Blood Cancer J. 2021;11:41.
Kantarjian HM, Kadia TM, DiNardo CD, Welch MA, Ravandi F. Acute myeloid leukemia: Treatment and research outlook for 2021 and the MD Anderson approach. Cancer 2021;127:1186–207.
Kantarjian HM, Short NJ, Fathi AT, Marcucci G, Ravandi F, Tallman M, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia: historical perspective and progress in research and therapy over 5 decades. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2021;21:580–97.
Kantarjian H, Short NJ, DiNardo C, Stein EM, Daver N, Perl AE, et al. Harnessing the benefits of available targeted therapies in acute myeloid leukaemia. Lancet Haematol. 2021;8:e922–e33.
Bazinet A, Kantarjian HM. Moving toward individualized target-based therapies in acute myeloid leukemia. Ann Oncol. 2023;34:141–51.
Löwenberg B, Ossenkoppele GJ, van Putten W, Schouten HC, Graux C, Ferrant A, et al. High-dose daunorubicin in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia. N. Engl J Med. 2009;361:1235–48.
Fernandez HF, Sun Z, Yao X, Litzow MR, Luger SM, Paietta EM, et al. Anthracycline dose intensification in acute myeloid leukemia. N. Engl J Med. 2009;361:1249–59.
Ravandi F, Estey E, Jones D, Faderl S, O’Brien S, Fiorentino J, et al. Effective treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia with all-trans-retinoic acid, arsenic trioxide, and gemtuzumab ozogamicin. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2009;27:504–10.
Lo-Coco F, Avvisati G, Vignetti M, Thiede C, Orlando SM, Iacobelli S, et al. Retinoic acid and arsenic trioxide for acute promyelocytic leukemia. N. Engl J Med. 2013;369:111–21.
Jen W-Y, Marvin-Peek J, Kantarjian HM, Alvarado YD, Borthakur G, Jabbour E, et al. Long-term follow-up of a phase II study of all-trans retinoic acid, arsenic trioxide and gemtuzumab ozogamicin in acute promyelocytic leukemia cancer. 2024.
Platzbecker U, Avvisati G, Cicconi L, Thiede C, Paoloni F, Vignetti M, et al. Improved outcomes with retinoic acid and arsenic trioxide compared with retinoic acid and chemotherapy in non-high-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia: final results of the randomized Italian-German APL0406 trial. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2017;35:605–12.
Burnett AK, Russell NH, Hills RK, Bowen D, Kell J, Knapper S, et al. Arsenic trioxide and all-trans retinoic acid treatment for acute promyelocytic leukaemia in all risk groups (AML17): results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1295–305.
Borthakur G, Cortes JE, Estey EE, Jabbour E, Faderl S, O’Brien S, et al. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin with fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte colony stimulating factor (FLAG-GO) as front-line regimen in patients with core binding factor acute myelogenous leukemia. Am J Hematol. 2014;89:964–8.
Borthakur G, Ravandi F, Patel K, Wang X, Kadia T, DiNardo C, et al. Retrospective comparison of survival and responses to Fludarabine, Cytarabine, GCSF (FLAG) in combination with gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) or Idarubicin (IDA) in patients with newly diagnosed core binding factor (CBF) acute myelogenous leukemia: MD Anderson experience in 174 patients. Am J Hematol. 2022;97:1427–34.
Burnett AK, Hills RK, Milligan D, Kjeldsen L, Kell J, Russell NH, et al. Identification of patients with acute myeloblastic leukemia who benefit from the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin: results of the MRC AML15 trial. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2011;29:369–77.
Hills RK, Castaigne S, Appelbaum FR, Delaunay J, Petersdorf S, Othus M, et al. Addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin to induction chemotherapy in adult patients with acute myeloid leukaemia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:986–96.
Wei AH, Döhner H, Pocock C, Montesinos P, Afanasyev B, Dombret H, et al. Oral azacitidine maintenance therapy for acute myeloid leukemia in first remission. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2526–37.
Lancet JE, Uy GL, Cortes JE, Newell LF, Lin TL, Ritchie EK, et al. CPX-351 (cytarabine and daunorubicin) liposome for injection versus conventional cytarabine plus daunorubicin in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2684–92.
Garcia-Manero G, McCloskey J, Griffiths EA, Yee KWL, Zeidan AM, Al-Kali A, et al. Oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (ASCERTAIN): a registrational, randomised, crossover, pharmacokinetics, phase 3 study. Lancet Haematol. 2024;11:e15–e26.
Issa GC, Ravandi F, DiNardo CD, Jabbour E, Kantarjian HM, Andreeff M. Therapeutic implications of menin inhibition in acute leukemias. Leukemia 2021;35:2482–95.
Issa GC, Aldoss I, DiPersio J, Cuglievan B, Stone R, Arellano M, et al. The menin inhibitor revumenib in KMT2A-rearranged or NPM1-mutant leukaemia. Nature 2023;615:920–4.
Short NJ, Kantarjian H. Using immunotherapy and novel trial designs to optimise front-line therapy in adult acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: breaking with the traditions of the past. Lancet Haematol. 2023;10:e382–e8.
Ley TJ, Miller C, Ding L, Raphael BJ, Mungall AJ, Robertson A, et al. Genomic and epigenomic landscapes of adult de novo acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2059–74.
Grimwade D, Hills RK, Moorman AV, Walker H, Chatters S, Goldstone AH, et al. Refinement of cytogenetic classification in acute myeloid leukemia: determination of prognostic significance of rare recurring chromosomal abnormalities among 5876 younger adult patients treated in the United Kingdom Medical Research Council trials. Blood. 2010;116:354–65.
Richard-Carpentier G, Rausch CR, Sasaki K, Hammond D, Morita K, Takahashi K, et al. Characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with acute myeloid leukemia with inv(3)(q21q26.2) or t(3;3)(q21;q26.2). Haematologica 2023;108:2331–42.
Papaemmanuil E, Gerstung M, Bullinger L, Gaidzik VI, Paschka P, Roberts ND, et al. Genomic classification and prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia. N. Engl J Med. 2016;374:2209–21.
Döhner H, Wei AH, Appelbaum FR, Craddock C, DiNardo CD, Dombret H, et al. Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2022 recommendations from an international expert panel on behalf of the ELN. Blood. 2022;140:1345–77.
Pastore F, Dufour A, Benthaus T, Metzeler KH, Maharry KS, Schneider S, et al. Combined molecular and clinical prognostic index for relapse and survival in cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1586–94.
Bataller A, DiNardo CD, Bazinet A, Daver NG, Maiti A, Borthakur G, et al. Targetable genetic abnormalities in patients with acute myeloblastic leukemia across age groups. Am J Hematol. 2024;99:792–6.
Gondran C, Dumas PY, Bérard E, Bidet A, Delabesse E, Tavitian S, et al. Imatinib with intensive chemotherapy in AML with t(9;22)(q34.1;q11.2)/BCR::ABL1. A DATAML registry study. Blood Cancer J 2024;14:91.
Angenendt L, Röllig C, Montesinos P, Martínez-Cuadrón D, Barragan E, García R, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities and prognosis in NPM1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from nine international cohorts. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2019;37:2632–42.
DiNardo CD, Tiong IS, Quaglieri A, MacRaild S, Loghavi S, Brown FC, et al. Molecular patterns of response and treatment failure after frontline venetoclax combinations in older patients with AML. Blood 2020;135:791–803.
Issa GC, Bidikian A, Venugopal S, Konopleva M, DiNardo CD, Kadia TM, et al. Clinical outcomes associated with NPM1 mutations in patients with relapsed or refractory AML. Blood Adv. 2023;7:933–42.
Aldoss I, Issa GC, Thirman M, DiPersio J, Arellano M, Blachly JS, et al. Revumenib monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory KMT2AR acute leukemia: topline efficacy and safety results from the pivotal augment-101 phase 2 study. HemaSphere. 2024. Blood 2023; 142 (Supplement 2): LBA–5. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-192042.
Daver N, Erba H, Watts JM, Yuda J, Levis MJ, Fukushima K, et al. First-in-human phase 1/2 study of the menin-mll inhibitor DSP-5336 in patients with relapsed or refractory acute leukemia: updated results from dose escalation. Abstract S132. Hemasphere. 2024.
Wei AH, Searle E, Aldoss I, Alfonso-Piérola A, Alonso-Dominguez JM, Curtis M, et al. A phase 1B study of the MENIN-KMT2A inhibitor JNJ-75276617 in combination with venetoclax and azacitidine in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia with alterations in KMT2A OR NPM1. Abstract S133. HemaSphere. 2024.
Zeidner J, Lin TL, Welkie R, Madanat Y, Koenig K, Swords R, et al. Phase 1B study of azacitidine, venetoclax and revumenib in newly diagnosed older adults with NPM1 MUTATED OR KMT2A REARRANGED AML: interim results of dose escalation from the beataml consortium. Abstract S134. HemaSphere. 2024.
Kadia TM, Jain P, Ravandi F, Garcia-Manero G, Andreef M, Takahashi K, et al. TP53 mutations in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: Clinicomolecular characteristics, response to therapy, and outcomes. Cancer. 2016;122:3484–91.
Daver NG, Maiti A, Kadia TM, Vyas P, Majeti R, Wei AH, et al. TP53-mutated myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia: biology, current therapy, and future directions. Cancer Discov. 2022;12:2516–29.
Daver NG, Iqbal S, Huang J, Renard C, Lin J, Pan Y, et al. Clinical characteristics and overall survival among acute myeloid leukemia patients with TP53 gene mutation or chromosome 17p deletion. Am J Hematol. 2023;98:1176–84.
Neubauer A, Maharry K, Mrózek K, Thiede C, Marcucci G, Paschka P, et al. Patients with acute myeloid leukemia and RAS mutations benefit most from postremission high-dose cytarabine: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B study. J Clin Oncol: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2008;26:4603–9.
Rivera D, Kim K, Kanagal-Shamanna R, Borthakur G, Montalban-Bravo G, Daver N, et al. Implications of RAS mutational status in subsets of patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia across therapy subtypes. Am J Hematol. 2022;97:1599–606.
Alotaibi AS, Yilmaz M, Kanagal-Shamanna R, Loghavi S, Kadia TM, DiNardo CD, et al. Patterns of resistance differ in patients with acute myeloid leukemia treated with type I versus Type II FLT3 inhibitors. Blood cancer Discov. 2021;2:125–34.
Alotaibi AS, Yilmaz M, Loghavi S, DiNardo C, Borthakur G, Kadia TM, et al. Emergence of BCR-ABL1 fusion in AML Post-FLT3 inhibitor-based therapy: a potentially targetable mechanism of resistance - a case series. Front Oncol. 2020;10:588876.
Alfayez M, Issa GC, Patel KP, Wang F, Wang X, Short NJ, et al. The Clinical impact of PTPN11 mutations in adults with acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 2021;35:691–700.
Stone RM, Mandrekar SJ, Sanford BL, Laumann K, Geyer S, Bloomfield CD, et al. Midostaurin plus chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia with a FLT3 mutation. N. Engl J Med. 2017;377:454–64.
Erba HP, Montesinos P, Kim HJ, Patkowska E, Vrhovac R, Žák P, et al. Quizartinib plus chemotherapy in newly diagnosed patients with FLT3-internal-tandem-duplication-positive acute myeloid leukaemia (QuANTUM-First): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet (Lond, Engl). 2023;401:1571–83.
Kadia TM, Ravandi F, Molica M, Bataller A, Borthakur G, Daver N, et al. Phase II study of cladribine, idarubicin, and ara-C (CLIA) with or without sorafenib as initial therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Hematol. 2023;98:1711–20.
Ghosh S, Kuchenbauer F, Stubbins RJ, Chung S, Narayanan S, Nevill TJ, et al. Improvement in survival of patients with FLT3 mutated acute myeloid leukemia: results from a retrospective Canadian cohort. Blood 2023;142:1482-.
Döhner H, Pratz K, Dinardo C, Jonas B, Pullarkat V, Thirman M, et al. ELN risk stratification is not predictive of outcomes for treatment-naïve patients with acute myeloid leukemia treated with venetoclax and azacitidine. Blood 2022;140:1441–4.
Schlenk RF, Kayser S, Bullinger L, Kobbe G, Casper J, Ringhoffer M, et al. Differential impact of allelic ratio and insertion site in FLT3-ITD-positive AML with respect to allogeneic transplantation. Blood 2014;124:3441–9.
Russell NH, Wilhelm-Benartzi C, Othman J, Dillon R, Knapper S, Batten LM, et al. Fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and idarubicin with gemtuzumab ozogamicin improves event-free survival in younger patients with newly diagnosed AML and overall survival in patients with NPM1 and FLT3 mutations. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2024;42:1158–68.
Döhner H, Weber D, Krzykalla J, Fiedler W, Kühn MWM, Schroeder T, et al. Intensive chemotherapy with or without gemtuzumab ozogamicin in patients with NPM1-mutated acute myeloid leukaemia (AMLSG 09-09): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2023;10:e495–e509.
McMahon CM, Ferng T, Canaani J, Wang ES, Morrissette JJD, Eastburn DJ, et al. Clonal selection with RAS pathway activation mediates secondary clinical resistance to selective FLT3 inhibition in acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer Discov. 2019;9:1050–63.
Bataller A, Bazinet A, DiNardo CD, Maiti A, Borthakur G, Daver NG, et al. Prognostic risk signature in patients with acute myeloid leukemia treated with hypomethylating agents and venetoclax. Blood Adv. 2024;8:927–35.
Döhner H, Pratz KW, DiNardo CD, Wei AH, Jonas BA, Pullarkat V, et al. Genetic risk stratification and outcomes among treatment-naive patients with AML treated with venetoclax and azacitidine. Blood. 12:blood.2024024944. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2024024944.
Sasaki K, Kanagal-Shamanna R, Montalban-Bravo G, Assi R, Jabbour E, Ravandi F, et al. Impact of the variant allele frequency of ASXL1, DNMT3A, JAK2, TET2, TP53, and NPM1 on the outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer 2020;126:765–74.
Sasaki K, Ravandi F, Kadia T, DiNardo C, Borthakur G, Short N, et al. Prediction of survival with intensive chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Hematol. 2022;97:865–76.
Sasaki K, Ravandi F, Kadia TM, Borthakur G, Short NJ, Jain N, et al. Prediction of survival with lower intensity therapy among older patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer 2023;129:1017–29.
Pratcorona M, Brunet S, Nomdedéu J, Ribera JM, Tormo M, Duarte R, et al. Favorable outcome of patients with acute myeloid leukemia harboring a low-allelic burden FLT3-ITD mutation and concomitant NPM1 mutation: relevance to post-remission therapy. Blood 2013;121:2734–8.
Santos FP, Jones D, Qiao W, Cortes JE, Ravandi F, Estey EE, et al. Prognostic value of FLT3 mutations among different cytogenetic subgroups in acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer 2011;117:2145–55.
Kotsos D, Boertjes E, Gradowska P, Pabst T, Maertens J, Manz M, et al. Adverse prognostic impact of secondary-type mutations in ELN 2022 favorable risk acute myeloid leukemia. Abstract S147. HemaSphere. 2024.
Bataller A, Loghavi S, Gerstein Y, Bazinet A, Sasaki K, Chien KS, et al. Characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with myeloid malignancies and DDX41 variants. Am J Hematol. 2023;98:1780–90.
Montesinos P, Rodríguez-Veiga R, Burgues JM, Algarra L, Botella C, Antonio P, et al. Preliminary results of quiwi: a double blinded, randomized clinical trial comparing standard chemotherapy plus quizartinib versus placebo in adult patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-ITD wild-type AML. HemaSphere. 2023;7:e734771d.
Mosquera Orgueira A, Perez Encinas M, Diaz Arias JA, Rodriguez Veiga R, Bergua Burgues JM, Algarra JL, et al. The FLT3-like gene expression signature predicts response to quizartinib in wild-type FLT3 acute myeloid leukemia: an analysis of the Pethema Quiwi trial. Blood 2023;142:974-.
DiNardo CD, Schuh AC, Stein EM, Montesinos P, Wei AH, de Botton S, et al. Enasidenib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone in patients with newly diagnosed, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia (AG221-AML-005): a single-arm, phase 1b and randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:1597–608.
Pratz KW, Jonas BA, Pullarkat V, Thirman MJ, Garcia JS, Döhner H, et al. Long-term follow-up of VIALE-A: venetoclax and azacitidine in chemotherapy-ineligible untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Hematol. 2024;99:615–24.
Montesinos P, Recher C, Vives S, Zarzycka E, Wang J.Bertani G,et al.Ivosidenib and azacitidine in IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:1519–31.
Atluri H, Mullin J, Takahashi K, Loghavi S, Maiti A, Sasaki K, et al. Phase Ib/2 study of oral decitabine/cedazuridine (ASTX727) and venetoclax in combination with the targeted mutant IDH1 inhibitor ivosidenib or the targeted mutant IDH2 inhibitor enasidenib: 2023 update. Blood 2023;142:968-.
Lachowiez CA, Loghavi S, Zeng Z, Tanaka T, Kim YJ, Uryu H, et al. A phase Ib/II study of ivosidenib with venetoclax ± azacitidine in IDH1-mutated myeloid malignancies. Blood Cancer Discov. 2023;4:276–93.
Yilmaz M, Kantarjian H, Short NJ, Reville P, Konopleva M, Kadia T, et al. Hypomethylating agent and venetoclax with FLT3 inhibitor “triplet” therapy in older/unfit patients with FLT3 mutated AML. Blood Cancer J. 2022;12:77.
Short NJ, Daver N, Dinardo CD, Kadia T, Nasr LF, Macaron W, et al. Azacitidine, venetoclax, and gilteritinib in newly diagnosed and relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2024;42:1499–508.
Paschka P, Marcucci G, Ruppert AS, Mrózek K, Chen H, Kittles RA, et al. Adverse prognostic significance of KIT mutations in adult acute myeloid leukemia with inv(16) and t(8;21): a Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3904–11.
Marcucci G, Geyer S, Zhao J, Caroll AJ, Bucci D, Vij R, et al. Adding the KIT inhibitor dasatinib (DAS) to standard induction and consolidation therapy for newly diagnosed patients (pts) with core binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML): initial results of the CALGB 10801 (alliance) study. Blood 2013;122:357-.
Gotlib J, Radia DH, George TI, Robinson WA, Quiery J, Albert T, et al. Avapritinib induces responses in patients (PTS) with advanced systemic mastocytosis (ADVSM), regardless of prior midostaurin therapy. EHA. 2020;Abstract EP1079.
Shi P, Jia X, Liao N, Changxin Y, Li H, Jiang X, et al. Prospective evaluation of sorafenib combined with chemotherapy in newly diagnosed adult core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia: an open-label, randomized controlled, multicenter phase II trial. Blood 2022;140:2005–6.
Issa GC, Zarka J, Sasaki K, Qiao W, Pak D, Ning J, et al. Predictors of outcomes in adults with acute myeloid leukemia and KMT2A rearrangements. Blood. Cancer J. 2021;11:162.
Nguyen D, Kantarjian HM, Short NJ, Qiao W, Ning J, Cuglievan B, et al. Early mortality in acute myeloid leukemia with KMT2A rearrangement is associated with high risk of bleeding and disseminated intravascular coagulation. Cancer 2023;129:1856–65.
Jongen-Lavrencic M, Grob T, Hanekamp D, Kavelaars FG, Al Hinai A, Zeilemaker A, et al. Molecular minimal residual disease in acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1189–99.
Grimwade D, Freeman SD. Defining minimal residual disease in acute myeloid leukemia: which platforms are ready for “prime time”? Blood. 2014;124:3345–55.
Pastore F, Levine RL. Next-generation sequencing and detection of minimal residual disease in acute myeloid leukemia: ready for clinical practice? JAMA. 2015;314:778–80.
Klco JM, Miller CA, Griffith M, Petti A, Spencer DH, Ketkar-Kulkarni S, et al. Association between mutation clearance after induction therapy and outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia. JAMA. 2015;314:811–22.
Ravandi F, Jorgensen J, Borthakur G, Jabbour E, Kadia T, Pierce S, et al. Persistence of minimal residual disease assessed by multiparameter flow cytometry is highly prognostic in younger patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer 2017;123:426–35.
Short NJ, Zhou S, Fu C, Berry DA, Walter RB, Freeman SD, et al. Association of measurable residual disease with survival outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:1890–9.
Hourigan CS, Dillon LW, Gui G, Logan BR, Fei M, Ghannam J, et al. Impact of conditioning intensity of allogeneic transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia with genomic evidence of residual disease. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2020;38:1273–83.
Grimwade D, Jovanovic JV, Hills RK, Nugent EA, Patel Y, Flora R, et al. Prospective minimal residual disease monitoring to predict relapse of acute promyelocytic leukemia and to direct pre-emptive arsenic trioxide therapy. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3650–8.
Yin JA, O’Brien MA, Hills RK, Daly SB, Wheatley K, Burnett AK. Minimal residual disease monitoring by quantitative RT-PCR in core binding factor AML allows risk stratification and predicts relapse: results of the United Kingdom MRC AML-15 trial. Blood. 2012;120:2826–35.
Zhu HH, Zhang XH, Qin YZ, Liu DH, Jiang H, Chen H, et al. MRD-directed risk stratification treatment may improve outcomes of t(8;21) AML in the first complete remission: results from the AML05 multicenter trial. Blood. 2013;121:4056–62.
Krönke J, Schlenk RF, Jensen KO, Tschürtz F, Corbacioglu A, Gaidzik VI, et al. Monitoring of minimal residual disease in NPM1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia: a study from the German-Austrian acute myeloid leukemia study group. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2709–16.
Bazinet A, Kadia T, Short NJ, Borthakur G, Wang SA, Wang W, et al. Undetectable measurable residual disease is associated with improved outcomes in AML irrespective of treatment intensity. Blood Adv. 2023;7:3284–96.
Short NJ, Fu C, Berry DA, Walter RB, Freeman SD, Hourigan CS, et al. Association of hematologic response and assay sensitivity on the prognostic impact of measurable residual disease in acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Leukemia. 2022;36:2817–26.
Short NJ, Macaron W, Kadia T, Dinardo C, Issa GC, Daver N, et al. Clinical outcomes and impact of therapeutic intervention in patients with acute myeloid leukemia who experience measurable residual disease (MRD) recurrence following MRD-negative remission. Am J Hematol. 2022;97:E408–e11.
Falini B, Dillon R. Criteria for diagnosis and molecular monitoring of NPM1-mutated AML. Blood Cancer Discov. 2024;5:8–20.
Othman J, Potter N, Ivey A, Jovanovic J, Runglall M, Freeman SD, et al. Postinduction molecular MRD identifies patients with NPM1 AML who benefit from allogeneic transplant in first remission. Blood 2024;143:1931–6.
Dillon LW, Gui G, Page KM, Ravindra N, Wong ZC, Andrew G, et al. DNA sequencing to detect residual disease in adults with acute myeloid leukemia prior to hematopoietic cell transplant. JAMA. 2023;329:745–55.
Ivey A, Hills RK, Simpson MA, Jovanovic JV, Gilkes A, Grech A, et al. Assessment of minimal residual disease in standard-risk AML. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:422–33.
Levis MJ, Hamadani M, Logan B, Jones RJ, Singh AK, Litzow M, et al. Gilteritinib as post-transplant maintenance for AML with internal tandem duplication mutation of FLT3. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2024;42:1766–75.
Kantarjian HM, Keating MJ, Walters RS, Estey EH, McCredie KB, Smith TL, et al. Acute promyelocytic leukemia. M.D. Anderson Hospital experience. Am J Med. 1986;80:789–97.
Kantarjian HM, Keating MJ, Walters RS, Smith TL, McCredie KB, Freireich EJ. Role of maintenance chemotherapy in acute promyelocytic leukemia. Cancer. 1987;59:1258–63.
Lo-Coco F, Cimino G, Breccia M, Noguera NI, Diverio D, Finolezzi E, et al. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg) as a single agent for molecularly relapsed acute promyelocytic leukemia. Blood. 2004;104:1995–9.
Soignet SL, Frankel SR, Douer D, Tallman MS, Kantarjian H, Calleja E, et al. United States multicenter study of arsenic trioxide in relapsed acute promyelocytic leukemia. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3852–60.
Tallman MS, Andersen JW, Schiffer CA, Appelbaum FR, Feusner JH, Woods WG, et al. All-trans retinoic acid in acute promyelocytic leukemia: long-term outcome and prognostic factor analysis from the North American Intergroup protocol. Blood. 2002;100:4298–302.
Powell BL, Moser B, Stock W, Gallagher RE, Willman CL, Stone RM, et al. Arsenic trioxide improves event-free and overall survival for adults with acute promyelocytic leukemia: North American Leukemia Intergroup Study C9710. Blood. 2010;116:3751–7.
Avvisati G, Lo-Coco F, Paoloni FP, Petti MC, Diverio D, Vignetti M, et al. AIDA 0493 protocol for newly diagnosed acute promyelocytic leukemia: very long-term results and role of maintenance. Blood. 2011;117:4716–25.
Russell N, Burnett A, Hills R, Betteridge S, Dennis M, Jovanovic J, et al. Attenuated arsenic trioxide plus ATRA therapy for newly diagnosed and relapsed APL: long-term follow-up of the AML17 trial. Blood. 2018;132:1452–4.
Lancet JE, Moseley AB, Coutre SE, DeAngelo DJ, Othus M, Tallman MS, et al. A phase 2 study of ATRA, arsenic trioxide, and gemtuzumab ozogamicin in patients with high-risk APL (SWOG 0535). Blood Adv. 2020;4:1683–9.
Guarnera L, Lehmann S, Döhner K, Döhner H, Platzbecker U, Russell NH, et al. Long-term outcome of 1296 patients with newly diagnosed with APL: a harmony alliance study. Blood. 2023;142:727-.
Platzbecker U, Adès L, Montesinos P, Ammatuna E, Fenaux P, Baldus C, et al. First results of the apollo trial: a randomized phase III study to compare ato combined with atra versus standard aida regimen for patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia. Abstract S102. HemaSphere. 2024.
Tsimberidou AM, Estey E, Kantarjian H, Keating MJ, Pierce S, Garcia-Manero G. Granulocyte colony stimulating factor administration associated with cerebral hemorrhage in acute promyelocytic leukemia. Leukemia 2006;20:1452–3.
Chamoun K, Kantarjian HM, Wang X, Naqvi K, Aung F, Garcia-Manero G, et al. Unrecognized fluid overload during induction therapy increases morbidity in patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia. Cancer 2019;125:3219–24.
Jen WY, Sasaki K, Rausch CR, DiNardo CD, Kadia TM, Yilmaz M, et al. Acute kidney injury in acute promyelocytic leukemia: a possible adverse effect of high dose arsenic trioxide in obese patients. Leuk lymphoma. 2024;65:378–82.
Ravandi F, Koumenis I, Johri A, Tallman M, Roboz GJ, Strickland S, et al. Oral arsenic trioxide ORH-2014 pharmacokinetic and safety profile in patients with advanced hematologic disorders. Haematologica 2020;105:1567–74.
Zhu HH, Wu DP, Du X, Zhang X, Liu L, Ma J, et al. Oral arsenic plus retinoic acid versus intravenous arsenic plus retinoic acid for non-high-risk acute promyelocytic leukaemia: a non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:871–9.
Byrd JC, Ruppert AS, Mrózek K, Carroll AJ, Edwards CG, Arthur DC, et al. Repetitive cycles of high-dose cytarabine benefit patients with acute myeloid leukemia and inv(16)(p13q22) or t(16;16)(p13;q22): results from CALGB 8461. J Clin Oncol: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;22:1087–94.
Paschka P, Du J, Schlenk RF, Gaidzik VI, Bullinger L, Corbacioglu A, et al. Secondary genetic lesions in acute myeloid leukemia with inv(16) or t(16;16): a study of the German-Austrian AML Study Group (AMLSG). Blood 2013;121:170–7.
Hernandez-Sanchez A, Fidalgo H, Ramiro ÁV, Damm F, Thomas I, Versluis J, et al. Genomic landscape of adult AML with T(8;21)(Q22;Q22.1) and prognostic implications – results from the harmony platform. Abstract S148. HemaSphere. 2024.
Sasaki K, Ravandi F, Kadia TM, DiNardo CD, Short NJ, Borthakur G, et al. De novo acute myeloid leukemia: A population-based study of outcome in the United States based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, 1980 to 2017. Cancer 2021;127:2049–61.
Burnett AK, Russell NH, Hills RK, Hunter AE, Kjeldsen L, Yin J, et al. Optimization of chemotherapy for younger patients with acute myeloid leukemia: results of the medical research council AML15 trial. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3360–8.
Mayer RJ, Davis RB, Schiffer CA, Berg DT, Powell BL, Schulman P, et al. Intensive postremission chemotherapy in adults with acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer and Leukemia Group B. N. Engl J Med. 1994;331:896–903.
Weick JK, Kopecky KJ, Appelbaum FR, Head DR, Kingsbury LL, Balcerzak SP, et al. A randomized investigation of high-dose versus standard-dose cytosine arabinoside with daunorubicin in patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia: a Southwest Oncology Group study. Blood. 1996;88:2841–51.
Bishop JF, Matthews JP, Young GA, Szer J, Gillett A, Joshua D, et al. A randomized study of high-dose cytarabine in induction in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 1996;87:1710–7.
Kern W, Estey EH. High-dose cytosine arabinoside in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia: review of three randomized trials. Cancer 2006;107:116–24.
Willemze R, Suciu S, Meloni G, Labar B, Marie JP, Halkes CJ, et al. High-dose cytarabine in induction treatment improves the outcome of adult patients younger than age 46 years with acute myeloid leukemia: results of the EORTC-GIMEMA AML-12 trial. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2014;32:219–28.
Bassan R, Intermesoli T, Masciulli A, Pavoni C, Boschini C, Gianfaldoni G, et al. Randomized trial comparing standard vs sequential high-dose chemotherapy for inducing early CR in adult AML. Blood Adv. 2019;3:1103–17.
Löwenberg B, Pabst T, Vellenga E, van Putten W, Schouten HC, Graux C, et al. Cytarabine dose for acute myeloid leukemia. N. Engl J Med. 2011;364:1027–36.
Garcia-Manero G, Podoltsev NA, Othus M, Pagel JM, Radich JP, Fang M, et al. A randomized phase III study of standard versus high-dose cytarabine with or without vorinostat for AML. Leukemia. 2024;38:58–66.
Plunkett W, Liliemark JO, Adams TM, Nowak B, Estey E, Kantarjian H, et al. Saturation of 1-beta-D-arabinofuranosylcytosine 5’-triphosphate accumulation in leukemia cells during high-dose 1-beta-D-arabinofuranosylcytosine therapy. Cancer Res. 1987;47:3005–11.
Plunkett W, Liliemark JO, Estey E, Keating MJ. Saturation of ara-CTP accumulation during high-dose ara-C therapy: pharmacologic rationale for intermediate-dose ara-C. Semin Oncol. 1987;14:159–66.
Estey EH, Thall PF, Pierce S, Cortes J, Beran M, Kantarjian H, et al. Randomized phase II study of fludarabine + cytosine arabinoside + idarubicin +/- granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in poor prognosis newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. Blood. 1999;93:2478–84.
Park Y, Kang G-w, Kim DS, Lee S-y, Lee SR, Sung H, et al. High-dose cytarabine consolidation ( ≥ 1.5 g/m2) might have shown a better outcomes than intermediate-dose cytarabine (1.0 g/m2) combined with anthracyclines in AML patients who had achieved complete remissions in the first induction by standard 3+7 regimen. Blood. 2013;122:2692-.
Holowiecki J, Grosicki S, Robak T, Kyrcz-Krzemien S, Giebel S, Hellmann A, et al. Addition of cladribine to daunorubicin and cytarabine increases complete remission rate after a single course of induction treatment in acute myeloid leukemia. Multicenter, phase III study. Leukemia. 2004;18:989–97.
Holowiecki J, Grosicki S, Giebel S, Robak T, Kyrcz-Krzemien S, Kuliczkowski K, et al. Cladribine, but not fludarabine, added to daunorubicin and cytarabine during induction prolongs survival of patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a multicenter, randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2441–8.
Burnett AK, Russell NH, Hills RK, Kell J, Cavenagh J, Kjeldsen L, et al. A randomized comparison of daunorubicin 90 mg/m2 vs 60 mg/m2 in AML induction: results from the UK NCRI AML17 trial in 1206 patients. Blood. 2015;125:3878–85.
Röllig C, Steffen B, Schliemann C, Mikesch J-H, Alakel N, Herbst R, et al. Single versus double induction with “7 + 3” containing 60 versus 90 Mg daunorubicin for newly diagnosed AML: results from the randomized controlled SAL Dauno-double trial. Blood. 2022;140:523–5.
Bross PF, Beitz J, Chen G, Chen XH, Duffy E, Kieffer L, et al. Approval summary: gemtuzumab ozogamicin in relapsed acute myeloid leukemia. Clin Cancer Res. 2001;7:1490–6.
Castaigne S, Pautas C, Terré C, Raffoux E, Bordessoule D, Bastie JN, et al. Effect of gemtuzumab ozogamicin on survival of adult patients with de-novo acute myeloid leukaemia (ALFA-0701): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet (Lond, Engl). 2012;379:1508–16.
Delaunay J, Recher C, Pigneux A, Witz F, Vey N, Blanchet O, et al. Addition of gemtuzumab ozogamycin to chemotherapy improves event-free survival but not overall survival of AML patients with intermediate cytogenetics not eligible for allogeneic transplantation. results of the GOELAMS AML 2006 IR study. Blood. 2011;118:79-.
Short NJ, Kantarjian H, Ravandi F, Huang X, Xiao L, Garcia-Manero G, et al. A phase I/II randomized trial of clofarabine or fludarabine added to idarubicin and cytarabine for adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk lymphoma. 2018;59:813–20.
Nazha A, Kantarjian H, Ravandi F, Huang X, Choi S, Garcia-Manero G, et al. Clofarabine, idarubicin, and cytarabine (CIA) as frontline therapy for patients ≤60 years with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Hematol. 2013;88:961–6.
Minetto P, Candoni A, Guolo F, Clavio M, Zannier ME, Miglino M, et al. Fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine and idarubicin-based induction may overcome the negative prognostic impact of FLT3-ITD in NPM1 mutated AML, irrespectively of FLT3-ITD allelic burden. Cancers. 2020;13:1.
Candoni A, Papayannidis C, Martinelli G, Simeone E, Gottardi M, Iacobucci I, et al. Flai (fludarabine, cytarabine, idarubicin) plus low-dose Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin as induction therapy in CD33-positive AML: Final results and long term outcome of a phase II multicenter clinical trial. Am J Hematol. 2018;93:655–63.
Solh MM, Solomon SR, Morris LE, Zhang X, Holland HK, Bashey A. Improved Post remission survival of non- favorable risk Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML) patients following initial remission induction therapy with FLAG + /-Idarubicin versus 3 + 7 (Anthracycline + Cytarabine). Leuk Res. 2020;93:106318.
Bergua JM, Montesinos P, Martinez-Cuadrón D, Fernández-Abellán P, Serrano J, Sayas MJ, et al. A prognostic model for survival after salvage treatment with FLAG-Ida +/- gemtuzumab-ozogamicine in adult patients with refractory/relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia. Br J Haematol. 2016;174:700–10.
Kadia T, Ravandi F, Borthakur G, Daver N, DiNardo C, Pemmaraju N, et al. Phase II study of cladribine, idarubicin, and higher dose cytarabine (CLIA) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Abstract P603. HemaSphere. 2024.
Shahswar R, Krüger K, Gabdoulline R, Kloos A, Arnhardt I, Schwarzer A, et al. Flavida chemotherapy is an effective bridge-to-transplant strategy in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia patients. Abstract P595. HemaSphere. 2024.
Ruhnke L, Schliemann C, Mikesch J-H, Stelljes M, Fransecky L, Steffen B, et al. Venetoclax-based salvage treatment for relapsed/refractory aml using a combination with high-dose cytarabine and mitoxantrone (HAM-VEN): updated results of the phase-I/II SAL relax trial. Abstract S135. HemaSphere. 2024.
Russell N, Othman J, Dillon R, Potter N, Wilhelm-Benartzi C, Knapper S, et al. FLAG-IDA combined with gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) reduced MRD levels and improved overall survival in NPM1MUT AML independent of FLT3 AND MRD status, results from the AML19 trial. Abstract S135. HemaSphere. 2023;7.
Russell NH, Thomas A, Hills R, Thomas I, Gilkes A, Almuina N, et al. MRD directed treatment intensification with either FLAG-Ida or DA-cladribine improves survival in older aml patients: results from the NCRI AML18 randomised trial. Blood. 2023;142:830-.
Kharfan-Dabaja MA. A new dawn for gemtuzumab ozogamicin? Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:913–4.
Ravandi F, Estey EH, Appelbaum FR, Lo-Coco F, Schiffer CA, Larson RA, et al. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin: time to resurrect? J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3921–3.
DiNardo CD, Lachowiez CA, Takahashi K, Loghavi S, Xiao L, Kadia T, et al. Venetoclax combined with FLAG-IDA induction and consolidation in newly diagnosed and relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2021;39:2768–78.
Kadia TM, Reville PK, Borthakur G, Yilmaz M, Kornblau S, Alvarado Y, et al. Venetoclax plus intensive chemotherapy with cladribine, idarubicin, and cytarabine in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome: a cohort from a single-centre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2021;8:e552–e61.
Lachowiez CA, Reville PK, Kantarjian H, Jabbour E, Borthakur G, Daver N, et al. Venetoclax combined with induction chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia: a post-hoc, propensity score-matched, cohort study. Lancet Haematol. 2022;9:e350–e60.
Halpern AB, Lyman GH, Walsh TJ, Kontoyiannis DP, Walter RB. Primary antifungal prophylaxis during curative-intent therapy for acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 2015;126:2790–7.
Cornely OA, Maertens J, Winston DJ, Perfect J, Ullmann AJ, Walsh TJ, et al. Posaconazole vs. fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia. N. Engl J Med. 2007;356:348–59.
Chua CC, Roberts AW, Reynolds J, Fong CY, Ting SB, Salmon JM, et al. Chemotherapy and venetoclax in elderly acute myeloid leukemia trial (CAVEAT): a phase Ib dose-escalation study of venetoclax combined with modified intensive chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2020;38:3506–17.
Wang H, Mao L, Yang M, Qian P, Lu H, Tong H, et al. Venetoclax plus 3 + 7 daunorubicin and cytarabine chemotherapy as first-line treatment for adults with acute myeloid leukaemia: a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2022;9:e415–e24.
Pratz KW, Cherry M, Altman JK, Cooper BW, Podoltsev NA, Cruz JC, et al. Gilteritinib in combination with induction and consolidation chemotherapy and as maintenance therapy: a phase IB study in patients with newly diagnosed AML. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2023;41:4236–46.
Xuan L, Wang Y, Huang F, Fan Z, Xu Y, Sun J, et al. Sorafenib maintenance in patients with FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukaemia undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation: an open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:1201–12.
Burchert A, Bug G, Fritz LV, Finke J, Stelljes M, Röllig C, et al. Sorafenib maintenance after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia with FLT3-internal tandem duplication mutation (SORMAIN). J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2020;38:2993–3002.
Libura M, Giebel S, Piatkowska-Jakubas B, Pawelczyk M, Florek I, Matiakowska K, et al. Cladribine added to daunorubicin-cytarabine induction prolongs survival of FLT3-ITD+ normal karyotype AML patients. Blood. 2016;127:360–2.
Choi EJ, Lee JH, Lee JH, Park HS, Ko SH, Hur EH, et al. Comparison of anthracyclines used for induction chemotherapy in patients with FLT3-ITD-mutated acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Res. 2018;68:51–6.
Fournier E, Duployez N, Ducourneau B, Raffoux E, Turlure P, Caillot D, et al. Mutational profile and benefit of gemtuzumab ozogamicin in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 2020;135:542–6.
Stein EM, DiNardo CD, Fathi AT, Mims AS, Pratz KW, Savona MR, et al. Ivosidenib or enasidenib combined withintensive chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed AML: a phase 1 study. Blood. 2021;137:1792–1803.
Kantarjian H, O’Brien S, Cortes J, Giles F, Faderl S, Jabbour E, et al. Results of intensive chemotherapy in 998 patients age 65 years or older with acute myeloid leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome: predictive prognostic models for outcome. Cancer. 2006;106:1090–8.
Kantarjian H, Ravandi F, O’Brien S, Cortes J, Faderl S, Garcia-Manero G, et al. Intensive chemotherapy does not benefit most older patients (age 70 years or older) with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2010;116:4422–9.
Maiti A, Qiao W, Sasaki K, Ravandi F, Kadia TM, Jabbour EJ, et al. Venetoclax with decitabine vs intensive chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukemia: A propensity score matched analysis stratified by risk of treatment-related mortality. Am J Hematol. 2021;96:282–91.
Takahashi K, Kantarjian H, Garcia-Manero G, Borthakur G, Kadia T, DiNardo C, et al. Clofarabine plus low-dose cytarabine is as effective as and less toxic than intensive chemotherapy in elderly AML patients. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2016;16:163–8.e1-2.
Vives S, Martínez-Cuadrón D, Bergua Burgues J, Algarra L, Tormo M, Martínez-Sánchez MP, et al. A phase 3 trial of azacitidine versus a semi-intensive fludarabine and cytarabine schedule in older patients with untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer. 2021;127:2003–14.
Bitterman R, Hardak E, Raines M, Stern A, Zuckerman T, Ofran Y, et al. Baseline chest computed tomography for early diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in hemato-oncological patients: a prospective cohort study. Clin Infect Dis : Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2019;69:1805–8.
Lang K, Earle CC, Foster T, Dixon D, Van Gool R, Menzin J. Trends in the treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia in the elderly. Drugs Aging. 2005;22:943–55.
Burnett AK, Milligan D, Prentice AG, Goldstone AH, McMullin MF, Hills RK, et al. A comparison of low-dose cytarabine and hydroxyurea with or without all-trans retinoic acid for acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome in patients not considered fit for intensive treatment. Cancer. 2007;109:1114–24.
Kantarjian HM, Thomas XG, Dmoszynska A, Wierzbowska A, Mazur G, Mayer J, et al. 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 : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2670–7.
Dombret H, Seymour JF, Butrym A, Wierzbowska A, Selleslag D, Jang JH, et al. International phase 3 study of azacitidine vs conventional care regimens in older patients with newly diagnosed AML with >30% blasts. Blood. 2015;126:291–9.
Blum W, Garzon R, Klisovic RB, Schwind S, Walker A, Geyer S, et al. Clinical response and miR-29b predictive significance in older AML patients treated with a 10-day schedule of decitabine. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:7473–8.
Kadia TM, Cortes J, Ravandi F, Jabbour E, Konopleva M, Benton CB, et al. Cladribine and low-dose cytarabine alternating with decitabine as front-line therapy for elderly patients with acute myeloid leukaemia: a phase 2 single-arm trial. Lancet Haematol. 2018;5:e411–e21.
Kadia TM, Faderl S, Ravandi F, Jabbour E, Garcia-Manero G, Borthakur G, et al. Final results of a phase 2 trial of clofarabine and low-dose cytarabine alternating with decitabine in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer 2015;121:2375–82.
Kadia TM, Ravandi F, Borthakur G, Konopleva M, DiNardo CD, Daver N, et al. Long-term results of low-intensity chemotherapy with clofarabine or cladribine combined with low-dose cytarabine alternating with decitabine in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Hematol. 2021;96:914–24.
Budziszewska BK, Salomon-Perzynski A, Pruszczyk K, Barankiewicz J, Pluta A, Helbig G, et al. Cladribine combined with low-dose cytarabine as frontline treatment for unfit elderly acute myeloid leukemia patients: results from a prospective multicenter study of Polish adult leukemia group (PALG). Cancer. 2021;13:4189.
Li YY, Ge SS, Huang YH, Xu MZ, Wan CL, Tan KW, et al. Efficacy and safety of cladribine, low-dose cytarabine and venetoclax in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia: results of a pilot study. Blood Cancer J. 2024;14:12.
Pan R, Hogdal LJ, Benito JM, Bucci D, Han L, Borthakur G, et al. Selective BCL-2 inhibition by ABT-199 causes on-target cell death in acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer Discov. 2014;4:362–75.
Konopleva M, Pollyea DA, Potluri J, Chyla B, Hogdal L, Busman T, et al. Efficacy and biological correlates of response in a phase II study of venetoclax monotherapy in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia. Cancer Discov. 2016;6:1106–17.
Wei AH, Strickland SA Jr, Hou JZ, Fiedler W, Lin TL, Walter RB, et al. Venetoclax combined with low-dose cytarabine for previously untreated patients with acute myeloid leukemia: results from a phase Ib/II study. J Clin Oncol: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1277–84.
DiNardo CD, Pratz K, Pullarkat V, Jonas BA, Arellano M, Becker PS, et al. Venetoclax combined with decitabine or azacitidine in treatment-naive, elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 2019;133:7–17.
DiNardo CD, Jonas BA, Pullarkat V, Thirman MJ, Garcia JS, Wei AH, et al. Azacitidine and venetoclax in previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:617–29.
Pratz KW, Jonas BA, Pullarkat VA, Thirman MJ, Garcia JS, Fiedler W, et al. Long-term follow-up of the phase 3 viale-a clinical trial of venetoclax plus azacitidine for patients with untreated acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. Blood. 2022;140:529–31.
Wei AH, Montesinos P, Ivanov V, DiNardo CD, Novak J, Laribi K, et al. Venetoclax plus LDAC for newly diagnosed AML ineligible for intensive chemotherapy: a phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled trial. Blood. 2020;135:2137–45.
DiNardo CD, Maiti A, Rausch CR, Pemmaraju N, Naqvi K, Daver NG, et al. 10-day decitabine with venetoclax for newly diagnosed intensive chemotherapy ineligible, and relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia: a single-centre, phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2020;7:e724–e36.
Aiba M, Shigematsu A, Suzuki T, Miyagishima T. Shorter duration of venetoclax administration to 14 days has same efficacy and better safety profile in treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Ann Hematol. 2023;102:541–6.
Karrar O, Abdelmagid M, Rana M, Iftikhar M, McCullough K, Al-Kali A, et al. Venetoclax duration (14 vs. 21 vs. 28 days) in combination with hypomethylating agent in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: Comparative analysis of response, toxicity, and survival. Am J Hematol. 2024;99:E63–e6.
Bazinet A, Dinardo CD, Arani N, Bataller A, Rausch CR, Maiti A, et al. A retrospective comparison of abbreviated course “7 + 7” vs standard hypomethylating agent plus venetoclax doublets in older/unfit patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42:6507-.
Kadia T, Borthakur G, Daver N, DiNardo CD, Sasaki K, Issa GC. Phase II study of venetoclax added to cladribine + low dose AraC (LDAC) alternating with 5-azacytidine demonstrates high rates of minimal residual disease (MRD) negative complete remissions (CR) and excellent tolerability in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Blood. 2020;136:25.
Bataller A, Bazinet A, Borthakur G, Short NJ, Jabbour E, Takahashi K, et al. Cladribine with low dose cytarabine and venetoclax alternated with azacytidine and venetoclax for acute myeloid leukemia: prognostic analysis of a phase 2 clinical trial. Blood. 2023;142:4256-.
Short NJ, Kantarjian H. Choosing between intensive and less intensive front-line treatment approaches for older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia. Lancet Haematol. 2022;9:e535–e45.
Ohanian M, Garcia-Manero G, Levis M, Jabbour E, Daver N, Borthakur G, et al. Sorafenib combined with 5-azacytidine in older patients with untreated FLT3-ITD mutated acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Hematol. 2018;93:1136–41.
Esteve J, Schots R, Bernal Del Castillo T, Lee J-H, Wang ES, Dinner S, et al. Multicenter, open-label, 3-arm study of gilteritinib, gilteritinib plus azacitidine, or azacitidine alone in newly diagnosed FLT3 mutated (FLT3mut + ) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy: findings from the safety cohort. Blood. 2018;132:2736-.
Pollyea DA, DiNardo CD, Arellano ML, Pigneux A, Fiedler W, Konopleva M, et al. Impact of venetoclax and azacitidine in treatment-naïve patients with acute myeloid leukemia and IDH1/2 mutations. Clin Cancer Res. 2022;28:2753–61.
Botton S, Montesinos P, Polo S, Zarzycka E, Wang J, Riva M, et al. Updated efficacy and safety data from the AGILE study in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia treated with ivosidenib + azacitidine compared to placebo + azacitidine. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:7012-.
Issa GC, Cuglievan B, DiNardo CD, Short NJ, McCall D, Gibson A, et al. Early results of the phase I/II study investigating the all-oral combination of the menin inhibitor revumenib (SNDX-5613) with decitabine/cedazuridine (ASTX727) and venetoclax in acute myeloid leukemia (SAVE). Blood. 2023;142:58-.
Huls G, Chitu DA, Havelange V, Jongen-Lavrencic M, van de Loosdrecht AA, Biemond BJ, et al. Azacitidine maintenance after intensive chemotherapy improves DFS in older AML patients. Blood. 2019;133:1457–64.
Bazinet A, Kantarjian H, Bataller A, Pemmaraju N, Borthakur G, Chien K, et al. Reduced dose azacitidine plus venetoclax as maintenance therapy in acute myeloid leukaemia following intensive or low-intensity induction: a single-centre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2024;11:e287–e98.
Derolf Å, Juliusson G, Benson L, Fløisand Y, Lazarevic V, Antunovic P, et al. Decreasing early mortality in acute myeloid leukaemia in Sweden 1997-2014: improving performance status is a major contributing factor. Br J Haematol. 2020;188:187–91.
Bhatt VR, Shostrom V, Giri S, Gundabolu K, Monirul Islam KM, Appelbaum FR, et al. Early mortality and overall survival of acute myeloid leukemia based on facility type. Am J Hematol. 2017;92:764–71.
Ho G, Wun T, Muffly L, Li Q, Brunson A, Rosenberg AS, et al. Decreased early mortality associated with the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in California. Cancer. 2018;124:1938–45.
Koreth J, Schlenk R, Kopecky KJ, Honda S, Sierra J, Djulbegovic BJ, et al. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials. JAMA. 2009;301:2349–61.
Burnett AK, Wheatley K, Goldstone AH, Stevens RF, Hann IM, Rees JH, et al. The value of allogeneic bone marrow transplant in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia at differing risk of relapse: results of the UK MRC AML 10 trial. Br J Haematol. 2002;118:385–400.
AA Piérola, DM Cuadrón, R Rodríguez-Veiga, B Boluda, C Gil, RMA Diaz, et al. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus chemotherapy as consolidation treatment for acute myeloid leukemia in first remission: a pethema registry study. HemaSphere. 2024.
Sasaki K, Ravandi F, Kadia T, DiNardo CD, Yilmaz M, Short N, et al. Outcome of patients with relapsed acute promyelocytic leukemia. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2024;24:375–81.
Ravandi F, Cortes J, Faderl S, O’Brien S, Garcia-Manero G, Verstovsek S, et al. Characteristics and outcome of patients with acute myeloid leukemia refractory to 1 cycle of high-dose cytarabine-based induction chemotherapy. Blood 2010;116:5818–23. quiz 6153
Kantarjian HM, DiNardo CD, Nogueras-Gonzalez GM, Kadia TM, Jabbour E, Bueso-Ramos CE, et al. Results of second salvage therapy in 673 adults with acute myelogenous leukemia treated at a single institution since 2000. Cancer 2018;124:2534–40.
Jen WY, Takahashi K, Loghavi S, Kadia TM, Daver NG, Xiao L, et al. FLAG-IDA + venetoclax in newly diagnosed (ND) or relapsed/refractory (RR) AML. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42:6519-.
Stelljes M, Middeke JM, Bug G, Wagner-Drouet EM, Müller LP, Schmid C, et al. Remission induction versus immediate allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for patients with relapsed or poor responsive acute myeloid leukaemia (ASAP): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Haematol. 2024;11:e324–e35.
Daver N, Montesinos P, Altman JK, Wang ES, Martinelli G, Roboz GJ, et al. Pivekimab sunirine (PVEK, IMGN632), a CD123-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, in combination with azacitidine and venetoclax in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2023;142:2906-.
Daver NG, Montesinos P, DeAngelo DJ, Wang ES, Papadantonakis N, Todisco E, et al. Pivekimab sunirine (IMGN632), a novel CD123-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, in relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia: a phase 1/2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2024;25:388–99.
Vo PT, Gooley T, Rajendran JG, Fisher DR, Orozco JJ, Green DJ, et al. Safety and efficacy of yttrium-90-labeled anti-CD45 antibody (90Y-DOTA-BC8) followed by a standard reduced-intensity hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) regimen for patients with refractory/relapsed leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Blood. 2018;132:1018.
Gyurkocza B, Seropian S, Choe H, Litzow M, Abboud C, Koshy N, et al. S248: sierra trial results with a targeted radiotherapy, IOMAB-B, a myeloablative conditioning with reduced intensity tolerability yields high CR, LONG TERM SURVIVAL HSCT INELIGIBLE ACTIVE R/R AML. HemaSphere. 2023;7:e2941723.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported in part by the Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) P30CA016672, and the Charif Souki Cancer Research Grant.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
HK designed, conceived, and wrote the review. All authors, GB, ND, CDD, GI, EJ, TK, KS, NS, MY, FR reviewed, revised and approved the final review.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
HK reports research grants and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Ascentage, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, Immunogen, Novartis; honoraria from Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, KAHR Medical, Shenzhen Target Rx, Stemline, Takeda. TK reports grant or research support from BMS, Celgene, Pfizer, Amgen, Jazz, AstraZeneca and Genentech; consultant fees from Agios, Jazz, Genentech and Novartis. CDiN reports research support to institution from Abbvie, Agios, Bayer, Calithera, Cleave, BMS/Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo and ImmuneOnc; consultant/advisory boards with Abbvie, Agios, Celgene/BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, ImmuneOnc, Novartis, Takeda and Notable Labs. ND reports research funding from Daiichi-Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Gilead, Sevier, Genentech, Astellas, Daiichi-Sankyo, Abbvie, Hanmi, Trovagene, FATE, Amgen, Novimmune, Glycomimetics, and ImmunoGen and has served in a consulting or advisory role for Daiichi-Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Celgene, AbbVie, Astellas, Genentech, Immunogen, Servier, Syndax, Trillium, Gilead, Amgen and Agios. GB reports research funding from Bristol‐Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Scientific Affairs, Eli Lilly and Company, Cyclacel, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Oncoceutics, Arvinas, Cantargia, PTC Therapeutics, Argenx, BioTheryX, and Bioline and personal fees from PTC Therapeutics, Argenx, BioTheryX, and Bioline. GI reports research funding from Celgene, Merck, Kura Oncology, Syndax, Astex and Novartis, and received consultancy or advisory board fees from NuProbe, AbbVie, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Syndax and Kura Oncology. EJ reports research grants and advisory rolls with AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, BMS, Pfizer and Takeda, and advisory role with Genetech. FR reports research funding from BMS, Amgen, Xencor, Macrogenics, Orsenix, Abbvie, Prelude, Astex; consultancy and honoraria from Celgene, BMS, Amgen, Astellas, Xencor, Agios, AstraZeneca and Orsenix.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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
Kantarjian, H., Borthakur, G., Daver, N. et al. Current status and research directions in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Cancer J. 14, 163 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-024-01143-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-024-01143-2
- Springer Nature Limited