Characteristics and outcomes of older patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia according to treatment approach.

BACKGROUND: The development of newer strategies to improve outcomes for older patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia (s-AML) is a critical unmet need. Establishing baseline metrics for evaluating newer approaches is important.

METHODS: s-AML was defined as 1 or more of the following: a history of an antecedent hematologic disorder (AHD), a diagnosis of therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and AML with karyotype abnormalities characteristic of myelodysplastic syndrome. Newly diagnosed s-AML patients aged 60 to 75 years were grouped into 5 treatment cohorts: 1) patients receiving high- or intermediate-dose cytarabine-based intensive chemotherapy (IC), 2) patients receiving a hypomethylating agent (HMA) or HMA combinations, 3) patients receiving low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) combinations, 4) patients receiving CPX-351, and 5) patients receiving investigational (INV) agents. Nine hundred thirty-one patients met the age and s-AML criteria.

RESULTS: Complete remission rates were statistically lower in the HMA group (36%) versus the IC (46%), CPX-351 (45%), and LDAC groups (43%). Patients receiving less intensive regimens (the HMA and LDAC groups combined) had superior overall survival (OS) in comparison with patients receiving IC-based regimens (median 6.9 vs 5.4 months; P = .048). Only 4.3% of the IC patients proceeded to transplantation, whereas 10.3% of the patients on lower intensity regimens did (P = .001). There was no difference in median survival between patients treated with CPX-351 and patients treated with conventional lower intensity approaches (P = .75). Age > 70 years, an adverse karyotype, and a prior AHD were associated with decreased OS in a multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS: Lower intensity approaches are associated with lower early mortality rates and improved OS in comparison with intensive regimens. OS is poor with currently available therapies with a median OS of 6 months (5.4-7.6 months across regimens). Unsatisfactory outcomes with other INV agents underscore the need for more effective therapies. Cancer 2017;123:3050-60. © 2017 American Cancer Society.