Background: Therapy for patients (pts) with high risk AML remains unsatisfactory. Retrospective studies have demonstrated activity of fludarabine, cytarabine, GCSF and idarubicin (FLAG-IDA) and of mitoxantrone, etoposide and cytarabine (NOVE-HiDAC) as salvage therapy in pts with relapsed or refractory AML. A recent randomized trial indicated high complete remission (CR) rates with improved relapsed-free survival when FLAG-IDA is administered as frontline induction therapy (Burnett et al. J Clin Oncol 2013). Since 01/2011, we have used FLAG-IDA as a first line therapeutic option in pts with high risk AML (poor risk cytogenetics, antecedent myeloproliferative neoplasm or myelodysplastic syndrome, and/or therapy-related AML) in an attempt to improve CR rates and permit more patients with AML to advance to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). Prior to 2011, either 3&7 or NOVE-HiDAC was used as first line therapy in patients with AML.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of consecutive patients with high risk AML treated with front-line (a) FLAG-IDA between 01/2011 to 03/2015, (b) NOVE-HiDAC from 01/2006 to 12/2014, or (c) 3&7 from January 01/2011 to 12/2014 at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, to determine the CR rates and overall survival (OS) associated with the different regimens.

Results: Patients characteristics are in Table 1. Fifty-two, 32, and 30 pts received FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC or 3&7 as first induction, respectively. Patients receiving FLAG-IDA had more high-risk features (i.e. complex cytogenetics, more azacytidine failures) compared to those receiving 3&7. Overall CR rate (i.e. CR + [CRi] + [CRp]) with FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC, and 3&7 respectively was 86% (n=42/49), 84% (n=21/25) and 50% (n=13/26), respectively. Median CR duration, censored at time of transplant, for pts receiving FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC and 3&7 was 3 mos (0.5-15), 3.5 mos (1-9) and 5.5 mos (0.5-42), respectively. OS at 1 year with FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC and 3&7 was 61% (95% CI, 41% -75%), 55% (95% CI, 34%-72%) and 21.6% (95% CI, 7.4%-40.7%), respectively (log-rank test p-value=0.0076). On subgroup analysis, there was no statistical difference in OS for pts ≥70 years. Of those with a donor identified, 35% (n=13/37), 73% (n=11/15) and 29% (n=5/17) of pts who were treated with FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC and 3&7 underwent an alloSCT, respectively. Pts with sAML may have had a higher transplant rate due to donor searches initiated earlier. Probable and possible invasive aspergillosis infections in pts receiving FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC and 3&7 were 50%, 34% and 33% respectively. Institution of earlier bronchoscopies led to increased fungal detection in the FLAG-IDA group. Median length of stay and ICU transfers were similar between groups. Induction deaths were secondary to sepsis, respiratory failure, invasive aspergillosis, and hemorrhage; these were similar across groups. Two pts receiving NOVE-HiDAC, with prior MPN, died of progressive splenomegaly and liver failure.

Conclusions: Toxicities associated with frontline FLAG-IDA and NOVE-HIDAC induction are acceptable. FLAG-IDA and NOVE-HiDAC induction can result in durable CR, permitting patients with high risk AML to proceed to alloSCT and providing more favourable survival rates than frontline 3&7. Randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings for pts with poor-risk sAML and tAML.

Table 1.

Patient Characteristics

FLAG-IDA
(2013-2015)
NOVE-HiDAC
(2006-2014)
3&7
(2011-2014)
 N=52 N=32 N=30 
Median Age,y (range)
Age <70
Age ≥ 70
Sex (M:F) 
59.5 (21-76)
47 (90%)
5 (10%)
25:27 
54.5 (24-74)
31 (97%)
1 (3%)
18:14 
61.5 (20-78)
21 (70%)
9 (30%)
23:7 
Cytogenetics by MRC Classification
Good
Intermediate
Poor
Not available 
0 (0%)
25 (48%)
23 (44%)
4 (8%) 
0 (0%)
18 (56%)
9 (28%)
5 (16%) 
0 (0%)
20 (67%)
6 (20%)
4 (13%) 
Molecular
(Pts ≤70 y with normal karyotype)
FLT3-NPM1+
FLT3+ NPM1+
FLT3+ NPM1-
FLT3-NPM1- 
1/11 (9%)
5/11 (45%)
2/11 (18%)
3/11 (27%) 
0/7 (0%)
2/7 (29%)
1/7 (14%)
4/7 (57%) 
0/7 (0%)
1/7 (14%)
0/7 (0%)
6/7 (86%) 
WBC (x 109/L) (range) 5.15 (0.6 -239) 13 (1.3-182.4) 3.2 (0.7-164) 
sAML
IBMFS
MPN
MDS
Prior AZA 
27 (52%)
0/27 (0%)
10/27 (37%)
17/27 (63%)
9/17 (53%) 
29 (91%)
1/29 (4%)
15/29 (51%)
13/29 (45%)
2/13 (15%) 
20 (67%)
2/20 (10%)
0/20 (0%)
18/20 (90%)
5/18 (28%) 
Therapy-Related (%) 14 (27%) 6 (19%) 15 (50%) 
De Novo AML with
Complex Cytogenetics
FLT3+
Other (ie MLL) 
15 (29%)
7/15 (47%)
5/15 (33%)
3/15 (20%) 
0 (0%) 0 (0%) 
Donor Identified (%) 37(71%) 16(50%) 17(57%) 
FLAG-IDA
(2013-2015)
NOVE-HiDAC
(2006-2014)
3&7
(2011-2014)
 N=52 N=32 N=30 
Median Age,y (range)
Age <70
Age ≥ 70
Sex (M:F) 
59.5 (21-76)
47 (90%)
5 (10%)
25:27 
54.5 (24-74)
31 (97%)
1 (3%)
18:14 
61.5 (20-78)
21 (70%)
9 (30%)
23:7 
Cytogenetics by MRC Classification
Good
Intermediate
Poor
Not available 
0 (0%)
25 (48%)
23 (44%)
4 (8%) 
0 (0%)
18 (56%)
9 (28%)
5 (16%) 
0 (0%)
20 (67%)
6 (20%)
4 (13%) 
Molecular
(Pts ≤70 y with normal karyotype)
FLT3-NPM1+
FLT3+ NPM1+
FLT3+ NPM1-
FLT3-NPM1- 
1/11 (9%)
5/11 (45%)
2/11 (18%)
3/11 (27%) 
0/7 (0%)
2/7 (29%)
1/7 (14%)
4/7 (57%) 
0/7 (0%)
1/7 (14%)
0/7 (0%)
6/7 (86%) 
WBC (x 109/L) (range) 5.15 (0.6 -239) 13 (1.3-182.4) 3.2 (0.7-164) 
sAML
IBMFS
MPN
MDS
Prior AZA 
27 (52%)
0/27 (0%)
10/27 (37%)
17/27 (63%)
9/17 (53%) 
29 (91%)
1/29 (4%)
15/29 (51%)
13/29 (45%)
2/13 (15%) 
20 (67%)
2/20 (10%)
0/20 (0%)
18/20 (90%)
5/18 (28%) 
Therapy-Related (%) 14 (27%) 6 (19%) 15 (50%) 
De Novo AML with
Complex Cytogenetics
FLT3+
Other (ie MLL) 
15 (29%)
7/15 (47%)
5/15 (33%)
3/15 (20%) 
0 (0%) 0 (0%) 
Donor Identified (%) 37(71%) 16(50%) 17(57%) 

Disclosures

Gupta:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Author notes

*

Asterisk with author names denotes non-ASH members.

Sign in via your Institution