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: 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: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a hematologic malignancy that is treated in medically fit patients with intensive induction chemotherapy (IT) and postremission therapy to achieve a complete and long-term remission. The incidence of obesity in the general population is steadily increasing and has been identified as a major risk factor for all-cause mortality. Despite previous studies assessing the role of obesity in AML patients undergoing IT, there is an ongoing debate on the impact of obesity on patient outcome as well as the optimal dosing strategy in obese AML patients. We conducted a retrospective registry study assessing 1677 AML patients who were treated with IT for newly diagnosed AML. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) while event-free survival (EFS), the rate of first complete remission (CR1), relapse/refractory disease and non-relapse/refractory-related mortality (NRRrM), treatment-related toxicities, patient comorbidities and chemotherapy dosing strategies were analyzed as secondary endpoints. Obese patients (body mass index, BMI ≥ 30) displayed a significant inferior median OS (29.44 vs. 47.94 months, p = 0.015) without a significant difference in median EFS (7.8 vs. 9.89 months, p = 0.3) compared to non-obese patients (BMI & lt; 30). The cumulative incidence (CI) of NRRrM was significantly increased in obese patients compared to non-obese patients while no differences could be observed regarding the CI of relapsed or refractory disease. Obesity was identified as an independent risk factor for death (HR 1.27, [95% CI 1.07-1.51], p = 0.005) in a multivariable Cox regression analysis. When the cohort was stratified by age (≥/ & lt; 60 years), the difference in OS as well as the significantly increased CI of NRRrM was only observed in patients ≥ 60 years. Notably, obese patients demonstrated higher rates of cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities regardless of their age. No disparities for OS, EFS, CR1 rate or treatment-related toxicities were observed when the entire study population was stratified for the used dosing strategy (dose calculation using total body weight, idealized body weight, adjusted idealized body weight or capped at body surface area of 2 m 2). In conclusion, the present study identifies obesity as a major independent risk factor for worse overall survival and increased CI of non-relapse/refractory-related mortality in older (≥60 years) AML patients undergoing curative IT. These findings may be most likely attributed to obesity related comorbidities and not to dose adaption of chemotherapy in obese AML patients. Disclosures Schliemann: Boehringer-Ingelheim: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Philogen S.p.A.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Krause: Siemens: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; art-tempi: Honoraria; Kosmas: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: travel support; Abbvie: Other: travel support. Haenel: Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy; Bayer Vital: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fransecky: Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Medac: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Burchert: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Crysandt: Incyte: Honoraria; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Müller-Tidow: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Platzbecker: Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Geron: Honoraria. Baldus: Jazz: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria.

Abstract: We retrospectively studied 97 acute myeloid leukemia patients with trisomy 19 (median age at diagnosis 57 years; range, 17- 83 years) treated between 2001 and 2019 within two multicenter study groups. Trisomy 19 occurred alone in ten (10.5%) patients, with additional abnormalities being present in non-complex karyotypes in eight (8%) patients and in complex karyotypes in 79 (82%) patients. Altogether, karyotypes characterized by trisomies only were present in 27 (28%) patients. Data on response and outcome of intensively treated patients were available for 92 cases. The median follow-up was 6.4 years (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.9-9.0 years). The complete remission (CR) rate after induction therapy was 52% (48 patients); the early death rate was 10% (n=9). Notably, patients with trisomy 19 as the sole abnormality had a CR rate of 89%. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) was performed in 34 (35%) patients (CR, n=19; active disease, n=15). Five-year relapse-free and overall survival rates were 26% (95% CI: 16-43%) and 20% (95% CI: 13-31%), respectively. Overall survival rates were significantly higher in patients with trisomy 19 as the sole abnormality or within karyotypes characterized by trisomies only (P=0.05). An Andersen-Gill model including allo-HCT as a time-dependent covariable on overall survival revealed that trisomy 19 as the sole abno rmality or within karyotypes characterized by trisomies only was a favorable factor (hazard ratio [HR]=0.47; P=0.021); higher age at diagnosis had an adverse impact (10 years difference; HR=1.29; P=0.002), whereas allo-HCT did not have a beneficial impact (odds ratio=1.45; P=0.21). In our cohort, patients with trisomy 19 as the sole abnormality or within karyotypes characterized by trisomies only had a high CR rate and better clinical outcome.

Abstract: Higher doses of cytarabine appear to improve long-term outcome in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), in particular for younger patients. To this end, the optimal dosage of single-agent cytarabine in consolidation therapy remains elusive. Here, we assessed the impact of different dosages of cytarabine consolidation after 7 + 3 induction on outcome in a large real-world data set from the German Study Alliance Leukemia-Acute Myeloid Leukemia (SAL-AML) registry. Methods Patients between 18 and 64 years of age, registered between April 2005 and September 2020, 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 Six-hundred-forty-two patients received HiDAC consolidation with median dosage of 17.6 (IQR (interquartile range), 16.5–18.0) g/m 2 for a median number of 3 cycles (IQR, 2–3), whereas 178 patients received IDAC consolidation with 5.9 (IQR, 5.7–8.6) g/m 2 for a median of 2 cycles (IQR, 1–3). Both groups differed significantly in some important characteristics (age, sex, cytogenetic risk group, ECOG performance status, disease status, HCT-CI, number of induction cycles). After propensity score weighting for differences in patient and disease characteristics, relapse-free survival after 2 years was comparable between HiDAC-treated (55.3%) and IDAC-treated (55.6%) patients (HR = 0.935, p  = 0.69). Moreover, no significant differences in overall survival were observed after 2 years (84.7 vs. 80.6%, HR = 1.101, p  = 0.65). Notably, more patients treated with IDAC received allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in first remission (37.6 vs. 19.8%, p   〈  0.001). Censoring for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in first remission revealed no significant survival difference with regard to cytarabine dosage. Considering only of European LeukemiaNet (ELN) favorable-risk AML patients, there was no significant difference in outcome. Of note, significantly more patients treated with HiDAC suffered from ≥ 3 CTCAE infectious complications (56.7 [95%-CI 52.8–60.6%] vs. 44.1% [95%-CI 36.6–51.7%] ; p  = 0,004). The rate of other ≥ 3 CTCAE non-hematological toxicities and secondary malignancies was comparable in both treatment groups. Conclusions 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. Trial registration NCT03188874.

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 role of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with mutated IDH1/2 has not been defined. Therefore, we analyzed a large cohort of 3234 AML patients in first complete remission (CR1) undergoing alloHCT or conventional chemo-consolidation and investigated outcome in respect to IDH1/2 mutational subgroups ( IDH1 R132C, R132H and  IDH2  R140Q, R172K). Methods Genomic DNA was extracted from bone marrow or peripheral blood samples at diagnosis and analyzed for IDH mutations with denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography, Sanger sequencing and targeted myeloid panel next-generation sequencing, respectively. Statistical as-treated analyses were performed using R and standard statistical methods (Kruskal–Wallis test for continuous variables, Chi-square test for categorical variables, Cox regression for univariate and multivariable models), incorporating alloHCT as a time-dependent covariate. Results Among 3234 patients achieving CR1, 7.8% harbored IDH1 mutations (36% R132C and 47% R132H) and 10.9% carried IDH2 mutations (77% R140Q and 19% R172K). 852 patients underwent alloHCT in CR1. Within the alloHCT group, 6.2% had an IDH1 mutation (43.4% R132C and 41.4% R132H) and 10% were characterized by an IDH2 mutation (71.8% R140Q and 24.7% R172K). Variants  IDH1  R132C and  IDH2  R172K showed a significant benefit from alloHCT for OS ( p  = .017 and p  = .049) and RFS (HR = 0.42, p  = .048 and p  = .009) compared with chemotherapy only. AlloHCT in  IDH2  R140Q mutated AML resulted in longer RFS (HR = 0.4, p  = .002). Conclusion In this large as-treated analysis, we showed that alloHCT is able to overcome the negative prognostic impact of certain IDH mutational subclasses in first-line consolidation treatment and could pending prognostic validation, provide prognostic value for AML risk stratification and therapeutic decision making.

Abstract: In fit patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), immediate treatment start is recommended due to the poor prognosis of untreated acute leukemia. We explored the relationship between time from diagnosis to treatment start (TDT) and prognosis in a large real-world data set from the German Study Alliance Leukemia–Acute Myeloid Leukemia (SAL-AML) registry. All registered non–acute promyelocytic leukemia patients with intensive induction treatment and a minimum 12 months of follow-up were selected (n = 2263). We analyzed influence of TDT on remission, early death, and overall survival (OS) in univariable analyses for each day of treatment delay, in groups of 0 to 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, and & gt;15 days of TDT, adjusted for influence of established prognostic variables on outcomes. Median TDT was 3 days (interquartile range, 2-7). Unadjusted 2-year OS rates, stratified by TDT of 0 to 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, and & gt;15 days, were 51%, 48%, 44%, and 50% (P = .211). In multivariable Cox regression analysis accounting for established prognostic variables, the TDT hazard ratio as a continuous variable was 1.00 (P = .617). In OS analyses, separately stratified for age ≤60 and & gt;60 years and for high vs lower initial white blood cell count, no significant differences between TDT groups were observed. Our study suggests that TDT is not related to survival. As stratification in intensive first-line AML treatment evolves, TDT data suggest that it may be a feasible approach to wait for genetic and other laboratory test results so that clinically stable patients are assigned the best available treatment option. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03188874.