VEN and AZA compared with induction chemotherapy for newly diagnosed patients with acute myeloid leukemia
| . | Median OS (days) . | P . | ORR (%) . | P . | CR/CRi favored . | OS favored . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entire cohort | ||||||
| HMA-VEN (n = 143) | 483 | .002 | 76.9 | .2109 | • Age >64 • RUNXI mutated • sAML | • Age >64 andRUNX1 mutated |
| IC (n = 149) | 884 | 70.5 | • Monocytic subtype | • Undifferentiated or minimal maturation subtypes • ELN intermediate risk • FLT3-ITD mutated • RAS mutated | ||
| Propensity matched for age, biological risk | ||||||
| HMA-VEN | NR | .0667 | ||||
| IC | 705 | |||||
| . | Median OS (days) . | P . | ORR (%) . | P . | CR/CRi favored . | OS favored . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entire cohort | ||||||
| HMA-VEN (n = 143) | 483 | .002 | 76.9 | .2109 | • Age >64 • RUNXI mutated • sAML | • Age >64 andRUNX1 mutated |
| IC (n = 149) | 884 | 70.5 | • Monocytic subtype | • Undifferentiated or minimal maturation subtypes • ELN intermediate risk • FLT3-ITD mutated • RAS mutated | ||
| Propensity matched for age, biological risk | ||||||
| HMA-VEN | NR | .0667 | ||||
| IC | 705 | |||||
NR, not reached; ORR, overall response rate; sAML, secondary AML.
Reproduced from Cherry et al.27