Real‐world effectiveness of intensive chemotherapy with 7&3 versus venetoclax and hypomethylating agent in acute myeloid leukemia

Abstract

Abstract Intensive chemotherapy with cytarabine and anthracycline (7&3) remains the standard therapy for patients medically fit for induction, but the assessment of fitness remains controversial. Venetoclax and hypomethylating agent (ven/HMA) combination therapy has improved outcomes in unfit patients but no prospective study has assessed ven/HMA versus 7&3 as initial therapy in older, fit patients. Given no studies and expectation of ven/HMA use in patients outside of trial criteria, we evaluated retrospective outcomes among newly diagnosed patients. A nationwide electronic health record (EHR)‐derived database and the University of Pennsylvania EHR identified 312 patients receiving 7&3 and 488 receiving ven/HMA who were 60–75 years old without history of organ failure. Ven/HMA patients were older and more likely to have secondary AML, adverse cytogenetics, and adverse mutations. Median overall survival (OS) for patients receiving intensive chemotherapy was 22 versus 10 months for ven/HMA (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.40–0.60). Controlling for measured baseline characteristic imbalances reduced survival advantage by half (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53–0.94). A sub‐group of patients with equipoise, likelihood at least 30%–70% of receiving either treatment, had similar OS outcomes (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75–1.6). Regarding safety outcomes, 60‐day mortality was higher for ven/HMA (15% vs. 6% at 60 days) despite higher documented infections and febrile neutropenia for 7&3. In this multicenter real‐word dataset, patients selected for intensive chemotherapy had superior OS but a large group had similar outcomes with ven/HMA. Prospective randomized studies, controlling for both measured and unmeasured confounders, must confirm this outcome.