Abstract: Background: Trisomy 4 is a recurrent but rare cytogenetic abnormality reported in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The prognostic significance of this abnormality in AML patients is not clear. Prognosis of AML patients with trisomy 4 seems to be poor as compared to that of patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) may improve survival if applied early in first complete remission (CR). However, neither prospective clinical nor larger retrospective cohort studies are available to support these results from small series. Aims: To characterize AML patients with trisomy 4 and compare outcomes according to different treatment strategies. Methods: We retrospectively studied 123 AML patients with trisomy 4 (median age at diagnosis, 58 years; range, 16-76 years) treated between 2000 and 2019 within 2 large study groups. Standard statistical methods were applied. Results: Median white blood cell count at diagnosis was 4.8/nl (range, 0.4-255/nl) and platelets 46/nl (range, 2-330/nl). Type of AML was de novo in 97 (79%), secondary after myelodysplastic syndrome/myeloproliferative neoplasm in 18 (15%), and therapy-related in 8 (6%) patients. Sixty-two (50%) patients were female. Cytogenetic analysis revealed trisomy 4 as the sole abnormality in 28 (23%), additional abnormalities in 95 (77%) patients, most frequently ≥3 (n=66) abnormalities, trisomy 8 (n=41), karyotypes characterized by trisomies only (n=21) and t(8;21) or inv(16) (CBF; n=10). A total of 98 patients (80%) had NPM1 and FLT3-ITD mutation testing. Of those, 21 (21%) and 15 (15%) harbored NPM1 and FLT3-ITD mutations. Only 2 (3%) of 72 patients were CEBPA double mutated. Data on response to intensive anthracycline-based induction therapy were available in 117 patients. Early death rate was 5% (n=6). CR was achieved in 68% (n=79) with 22 (19%) requiring an intensive salvage treatment cycle. Notably, patients with trisomy 4 as sole abnormality had a CR rate of 89% (n=25/28). There was no difference in the CR rate in FLT3-ITD positive (n=10/15) as compared to FLT3 wild type (n=56/83) patients (67% each, P=0.99). Univariable analysis revealed trisomy 4 as sole abnormality (OR, 5.76; P=0.007) and NPM1 (OR, 12.08; P=0.02) as favorable factors. An allo-HCT was performed in 40 (34%) patients, of whom 19 patients were transplanted in first CR after induction therapy. Nine patients achieved CR after salvage chemotherapy and went on to allo-HCT; another 12 patients received allo-HCT with active disease. Type of donor was matched-related in 8, matched-unrelated in 30, and unknown in 2 of the 40 patients, respectively. Median follow-up of the intensively treated cohort was 73 months (95%-CI, 36-91 months). Five-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were 31% (95%-CI, 23-42%) and 27% (95%-CI, 18-42%). OS rates were significantly higher in patients with CBF leukemia or patients with trisomy 4 as compared to all other abnormalities (Figure 1; P & lt;0.001). Cox regression analysis on OS revealed CBF/CEBPA (HR, 0.75; P=0.02) and trisomy 4 as sole abnormality (HR, 0.63; P=0.04) as favorable factors; age with a difference of ten years was an in trend adverse factor (HR, 1.15; P=0.06; not significant: NPM1, FLT3-ITD, complex karyotype with ≥3 abnormalities). There was no difference on OS if patients proceeded to allo-HCT in CR1 or with active disease (P=0.8). Five-year RFS was 26% (95%-CI, 14-50%) in patients proceeding to allo-HCT after induction therapy (n=40), as compared to 28% (95%-CI, 17-46%; P=0.99) in those who received consolidation chemotherapy (n=49). Conclusions: Clinically, patients with trisomy 4 are very heterogeneous in particular with respect to cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities. In our cohort, patients with trisomy 4 as a sole abnormality had a high CR rate and favorable clinical outcome. In the total cohort, allo-HCT did not improve RFS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Krause: Siemens: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; art-tempi: Honoraria; Kosmas: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: travel support; Abbvie: Other: travel support. Schliemann: Philogen S.p.A.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Astellas: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Haenel: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer Vital: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Crysandt: Incyte: Honoraria; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fransecky: Medac: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Martinez-Lopez: Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Einsele: Janssen, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Platzbecker: AbbVie: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Geron: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Baldus: Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria. Müller-Tidow: Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding. Levis: Astellas and FujiFilm: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, FujiFilm, and Menarini: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Montesinos: Stemline/Menarini: Consultancy; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Tolero Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Röllig: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyer-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Schlenk: Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hexal: Honoraria; Neovio Biotech: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding.

Abstract: Background Venetoclax (VEN)-based combination therapy with hypomethylating agents (HMA) has been approved for first-line treatment in patients ineligible for intensive treatment based on two randomized trials. There is some evidence for efficacy also in the in relapsed/ refractory setting (R/R), but comparative controlled data is lacking. Here, we report our experience of VEN-Azacitidine (AZA) in R/R AML salvage treatment and bridge to allogeneic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) in fit patients compared to historical data from the Study Alliance Leukemia (SAL) registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03188874). Design/Methods We analyzed all patients with R/R AML after initial intensive therapy, who started VEN-AZA salvage treatment at the University Hospital Heidelberg, between October 2018 and October 2020. Patients, who were bridged to allo-HCT were compared in a multivariable analysis to data of R/R AML patients from the SAL registry receiving an allo-HCT. Results: A total of 26 patients (median age 60 years, range 23 to 79) were included. All patients initially received intensive therapy, 16 patients (62%) had been refractory to intensive induction therapy with DA (daunorubicin, cytarabine) (11 patients)/ CPX-351 (2 patients) or to an intensive salvage therapy regime with HAM (2 patients)/ Cytarabin-Bortezomib (1 patient). Ten patients (38%) had morphologic (7 patients) or molecular relapse (3 patients) after intensive first line therapy. The distribution of AML according to WHO-2016 classification was n=10 recurrent genetic abnormalities (n= 7, mutated NPM1; n=1, biallelic CEBPA mutations; n=1, mutated RUNX1; n=1, CBFB-MYH11), n=10 AML with MRC, n=6 AML NOS. According to the 2017 ELN classification, 9 patients (34,5%) had low risk, 8 (31%) intermediate risk and 9 (34,5%) adverse risk disease. All patients received AZA 75mg/m² for 7 days combined with VEN 400mg/day after initial ramp up or a reduced dose of 100mg/day in case of co-medication with azoles in 28 days cycles. Best response was CR/CRi in 58% (n=15), PR in 23% (n=6) patients. Day 30-mortality was 0%, day 60-mortality was 4% (n=1). Allo-HCT was performed in 20 patients (77%). Pre-Allo-HCT remission status was CR/CRi in 11 (55%), PR in 4 (20%) patients and MLFS in 1 patient and 4 patients had active disease (n=3, relapse after achieving CR/CRi on VEN-AZA, n=1 refractory to VEN-AZA.). At the time of analysis 15 (75%) of the 20 bridged patients were alive and 11 (55%) are still in CR resulting in a median relapse-free survival in bridged patients of 406 days, whereas all patients not proceeding to allo-HCT died after a median of 139 days. In total, 63 patients with R/R AML were identified in the SAL-registry proceeding to allo-HCT with non VEN-based salvage attempt. Pre-Allo-HCT remission status was CR/CRi in 18 (28%), PR in 15 (24%), unknown in 13 patients (21%) and 17 (27%) patients had active disease (n=9 relapsed, n=8 refractory). Patients of the SAL registry were younger (median, 55 years; range, 22-75 years) and more patients were ELN-int (low risk, 32%, n=20; int, 52%, n=33, adv, 16%, n=10). Median follow-up in the VEN-AZA and the SAL cohorts were 1.4 years and 4.6 years, respectively. Cox-regression modeling of survival measured from the date of being refractory/relapsed revealed a non-significant effect of the cohorts favoring the VEN-AZA salvage therapy (HR, 0.87, p=0.73). However, stratified univariable survival analysis revealed in trend better survival (p=0.10) in the VEN-AZA compared to the SAL cohort with 77% (95%-CI, 62-95%) and 74% (95%-CI, 57-97%) as well as 84% (95%-CI, 76-94%) and 52% (95-CI, 41-68%) 1- and 2-years survival, respectively. Conclusion: Our data confirms the efficacy of VEN-AZA in patients with R/R AML and underlines its potential as an effective strategy for bridging to successful allo-HCT. Disclosures Unglaub: JazzPharma: Consultancy, Other: travel costs/ conference fee; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: travel costs/ conference fee. Schlenk: Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Neovio Biotech: Honoraria; Hexal: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria. Middeke: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Glycostem: Consultancy; UCB: Honoraria. Krause: Siemens: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; art-tempi: Honoraria; Kosmas: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: travel support; Abbvie: Other: travel support. Schliemann: Philogen S.p.A.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Astellas: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Haenel: GSK: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer Vital: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Crysandt: Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria. Fransecky: Medac: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Einsele: Janssen, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Seggewiss-Bernhardt: Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ipsen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EusaPharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Platzbecker: AbbVie: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Geron: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Baldus: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Dreger: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Müller-Tidow: Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding. Sauer: Takeda: Consultancy, Other: DSMB/SAB Member; Matterhorn Biosciences AG: Consultancy, Other: DSMB/SAB Member; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: off-label use of Venetoclax-based combination therapy in relapsed or refractory AML

Abstract: We retrospectively studied 125 patients with acute myeloid leukemia and trisomy 4 (median age at diagnosis, 58 years; range, 16-77 years) treated between 2000 and 2019 within a multicenter study. Trisomy 4 was the sole abnormality in 28 (22%) patients and additional abnormalities were present in 97 (78%) patients. Twenty-two (22%) and 15 (15%) of 101 tested patients harbored NPM1 and FLT3-ITD mutations. Two (3%) of 72 tested patients had double CEBPA mutations. Data on response to intensive anthracycline-based induction therapy were available for 119 patients. Complete remission was achieved in 67% (n=80) and the early death rate was 5% (n=6). Notably, patients with trisomy 4 as sole abnormality had a complete remission rate of 89%. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation was performed in 40 (34%) patients, of whom 19 were transplanted in first complete remission. The median follow-up of the intensively treated cohort was 5.76 years (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.99-7.61 years). The 5-year overall survival and relapse-free survival rates were 30% (95% CI: 22-41%) and 27% (95% CI: 18-41%), respectively. An Andersen-Gill regression model on overall survival revealed that favorable-risk according to the European LeukemiaNet classification (hazard ratio [HR] =0.34; P=0.006) and trisomy 4 as sole abnormality (HR=0.41; P=0.01) were favorable factors, whereas age with a difference of 10 years (HR=1.15; P=0.11), female gender (HR=0.74; P=0.20) and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HR=0.64; P=0.14) did not have an significant impact. In our cohort, patients with trisomy 4 as their sole abnormality had a high complete remission rate and favorable clinical outcome. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation did not seem to improve overall survival.

Abstract: The presence of a mutated nucleophosmin-1 gene (NPM1 mut ) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with a favorable prognosis. To assess the predictive value with regard to allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (SCT), we compared the clinical course of patients with NPM1 mut AML eligible for allogeneic SCT in a donor versus no-donor analysis. Patients and Methods Of 1,179 patients with AML (age 18 to 60 years) treated in the Study Alliance Leukemia AML 2003 trial, we identified all NPM1 mut patients with an intermediate-risk karyotype. According to the trial protocol, patients were intended to receive an allogeneic SCT if an HLA-identical sibling donor was available. Patients with no available donor received consolidation or autologous SCT. We compared relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) depending on the availability of a suitable donor. Results Of 304 eligible patients, 77 patients had a sibling donor and 227 had no available matched family donor. The 3-year RFS rates in the donor and no-donor groups were 71% and 47%, respectively (P = .005); OS rates were 70% and 60%, respectively (P = .114). In patients with normal karyotype and no FLT3 internal tandem duplication (n = 148), the 3-year RFS rates in the donor and no-donor groups were 83% and 53%, respectively (P = .004); and the 3-year OS rates were 81% and 75%, respectively (P = .300). Conclusion Allogeneic SCT led to a significantly prolonged RFS in patients with NPM1 mut AML. The absence of a statistically significant difference in OS is most likely a result of the fact that NPM1 mut patients who experienced relapse responded well to salvage treatment. Allogeneic SCT in first remission has potent antileukemic efficacy and is a valuable treatment option in patients with NPM1 mut AML with a sibling donor.

Abstract: Increasingly large and complex biomedical data sets challenge conventional hypothesis-driven analytical approaches, however, data-driven unsupervised learning can detect inherent patterns in such data sets. Methods While unsupervised analysis in the medical literature commonly only utilizes a single clustering algorithm for a given data set, we developed a large-scale model with 605 different combinations of target dimensionalities as well as transformation and clustering algorithms and subsequent meta-clustering of individual results. With this model, we investigated a large cohort of 1383 patients from 59 centers in Germany with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia for whom 212 clinical, laboratory, cytogenetic and molecular genetic parameters were available. Results Unsupervised learning identifies four distinct patient clusters, and statistical analysis shows significant differences in rate of complete remissions, event-free, relapse-free and overall survival between the four clusters. In comparison to the standard-of-care hypothesis-driven European Leukemia Net (ELN2017) risk stratification model, we find all three ELN2017 risk categories being represented in all four clusters in varying proportions indicating unappreciated complexity of AML biology in current established risk stratification models. Further, by using assigned clusters as labels we subsequently train a supervised model to validate cluster assignments on a large external multicenter cohort of 664 intensively treated AML patients. Conclusions Dynamic data-driven models are likely more suitable for risk stratification in the context of increasingly complex medical data than rigid hypothesis-driven models to allow for a more personalized treatment allocation and gain novel insights into disease biology.

Abstract: Biallelic mutations of the CEBPA gene (CEBPAbi) define a distinct entity associated with favorable prognosis; however, the role of monoallelic mutations (CEBPAsm) is poorly understood. We retrospectively analyzed 4708 adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who had been recruited into the Study Alliance Leukemia trials, to investigate the prognostic impact of CEBPAsm. CEBPA mutations were identified in 240 patients (5.1%): 131 CEBPAbi and 109 CEBPAsm (60 affecting the N-terminal transactivation domains [CEBPAsmTAD] and 49 the C-terminal DNA-binding or basic leucine zipper region [CEBPAsmbZIP] ). Interestingly, patients carrying CEBPAbi or CEBPAsmbZIP shared several clinical factors: they were significantly younger (median, 46 and 50 years, respectively) and had higher white blood cell (WBC) counts at diagnosis (median, 23.7 × 109/L and 35.7 × 109/L) than patients with CEBPAsmTAD (median age, 63 years, median WBC 13.1 × 109/L; P & lt; .001). Co-mutations were similar in both groups: GATA2 mutations (35.1% CEBPAbi; 36.7% CEBPAsmbZIP vs 6.7% CEBPAsmTAD; P & lt; .001) or NPM1 mutations (3.1% CEBPAbi; 8.2% CEBPAsmbZIP vs 38.3% CEBPAsmTAD; P & lt; .001). CEBPAbi and CEBPAsmbZIP, but not CEBPAsmTAD were associated with significantly improved overall (OS; median 103 and 63 vs 13 months) and event-free survival (EFS; median, 20.7 and 17.1 months vs 5.7 months), in univariate and multivariable analyses. Additional analyses revealed that the clinical and molecular features as well as the favorable survival were confined to patients with in-frame mutations in bZIP (CEBPAbZIP-inf). When patients were classified according to CEBPAbZIP-inf and CEBPAother (including CEBPAsmTAD and non-CEBPAbZIP-inf), only patients bearing CEBPAbZIP-inf showed superior complete remission rates and the longest median OS and EFS, arguing for a previously undefined prognostic role of this type of mutation.

Abstract: Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is characterized by a high relapse rate, indicating insufficient clearance of leukemia-initiating cells. Depending on genetic risk stratification, consolidating chemotherapy proves to significantly reduce the risk of relapse. In particular, in younger AML patients higher dosage of cytarabine appears to improve long-term outcome, while there is no apparent benefit of multiagent combination, compared to cytarabine monotherapy. However, to this end the optimal dosage of single agent cytarabine in consolidation therapy after 7+3 remission induction remains elusive. Methods: Here, we retrospectively assessed the impact of different dosages of cytarabine consolidation on outcome in a large real-world data set from the German Study Alliance Leukemia-Acute Myeloid Leukemia (SAL-AML) registry. Patients below 65 years of age, registered between April 2005 and September 2020 with non-acute promyelocytic leukemia, who attained complete remission after intensive induction and received at least one consolidation cycle with intermediate (IDAC) or high dose cytarabine (HiDAC) were selected. To account for differences in patient and disease characteristics between both groups, the average treatment effect was estimated by propensity score weighting. Results: 642 patients received HiDAC consolidation with a median dosage of 5794.88 (IQR, 4745.48-5971.56) mg/m 2/d with a median number of 3 cycles (IQR, 2-3), whereas 178 patients received IDAC consolidation with 1946.16 (IQR, 1869.51-2469.15) mg/m 2/d with a median of 2 cycles (IQR, 1-3). IDAC-treated patients showed in average a higher age (median (IQR) 58.5 (49-62) years vs. 50 (41-56) years) and more comorbidities with 43.8% having an HCT-CI score of 2-4, compared to 22.3% among HiDAC-treated patients. Alongside, significantly more secondary (5.1% vs. 3.1%) and therapy-related (12.4% vs. 4.1%) AML as well as more adverse (14.5% vs. 6.5%) and less favorable (40.6% vs. 56%) genetic risk features according to ELN 2017 risk classification were found among IDAC-treated patients. After propensity score weighting for differences in patient and disease characteristics, overall survival after 5 years was comparable between HiDAC-treated (71.1 %) and IDAC-treated (67.7%) patients. Moreover, no significant differences in relapse-free survival were observed after 5 years (47.4 vs. 45.2%). Notably, more patients treated with IDAC received allogeneic stem cell transplantation in first remission (37.6 vs. 19.8%) while significantly more HiDAC-treated patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation in relapse (30.8 vs. 20.2%). Censoring for allogeneic stem cell transplantation in first remission revealed no significant survival difference with regard to cytarabine dosage. Considering only ELN favorable risk AML patients, there was no difference in 5-years overall (80.5% vs. 83.9%) nor relapse-free (57.7% vs. 56.8%) survival. Of note, significantly more patients treated with HiDAC suffered from ≥3 CTCAE infectious complications (56.7 vs. 44.1%), which was more striking in patients above 50 years of age. The rate of other ≥3 CTCAE non-hematological toxicities and secondary malignancies was comparable in both treatment groups. Conclusion: This retrospective analysis suggests no significant benefit of high dose cytarabine compared to intermediate dosages in consolidation for AML patients under 65 years of age, independent of ELN risk group. Disclosures Krause: Siemens: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; art-tempi: Honoraria; Kosmas: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: travel support; Abbvie: Other: travel support. Schliemann: Philogen S.p.A.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Astellas: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Haenel: Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy; Bayer Vital: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Brummendorf: Takepart Media: Honoraria; Repeat Diagnostics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers: Research Funding. Fransecky: Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medac: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Einsele: Janssen, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Held: MSD: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Acortech Biopharma: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Platzbecker: Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Geron: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Baldus: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria. Mueller-Tidow: Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bioline: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract: Background: Standard therapy of acute promyelocytic leukemia has long relied on the combination of All-trans-retinoic acid (ATRA) and chemotherapy. The introduction of arsenic trioxide (ATO) in APL treatment has allowed achievement of similarly high remission and survival rates coupled with significantly reduced myelosuppression. Recent results of the APL0406 trial by the GIMEMA-AMLSG-SAL study groups showed that the combination of ATRA and arsenic trioxide (ATO) is superior to standard ATRA and chemotherapy (CHT) in front-line therapy of low/intermediate risk acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). The implications of these results for the clinical practice of APL patients in Germany have been uncertain given the fact that ATO is not formally licensed for front-line therapy of APL. Aim:In order to provide evidence and a reflection of the clinical reality of APL patient care in Germany an intergroup APL registry (National acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) observational study, NAPOLEON) was recently initiated by several AML study groups. Methods:Eligible patients are adults at least 18 years of age with newly diagnosed or relapsed APL not beyond the first year of diagnosis. Here we report the first analysis on the series of patients prospectively enrolled into this registry. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, received IRB approval by all participating centers and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02192619). Results: As of August 1st 2016, 88 patients have been included into the study with a median age of 57 years (range 22-87). All had newly diagnosed APL (100%) with 66% (n=58) being of low/intermediate risk according to the Sanz score. Out of those patients 76% (n=44) received an ATO-ATRA based induction regimen followed by a median of 4 courses of consolidation (according to the APL 0406 study).Of 41 patients evaluable for response to induction, 40/41 (98%) patients achieved complete remission (CR) with the ATRA-ATO arms. Early death rate within 30 days of therapy was 2% (1/44). After a median follow-up of 12 months, the event-free survival, cumulative incidence of relapse and overall survival at 12 months for these patients were 97%, 0% and 97%, respectively. Therapy was well tolerated and no new safety signals have been obtained. Conclusion:These real life data from a prospective German registry provide further evidence for the safety and sustained anti-leukemic efficacy of ATRA-ATO in low/intermediate risk APL. These results further support ATRA-ATO as the new standard of care in this clinical setting. Table Demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics of the eligible patients. Table. Demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics of the eligible patients. Disclosures Platzbecker: TEVA: Honoraria, Research Funding. Greiner:BMS: Research Funding. Thiede:AgenDix: Employment, Other: Ownership. Hochhaus:BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; ARIAD: Honoraria, Research Funding.