Evaluation of treatment outcomes for AML patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy before and after the implementation of VEN/AZA - a retrospective cohort study.
{"title":"Evaluation of treatment outcomes for AML patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy before and after the implementation of VEN/AZA - a retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Norea Gruber, Josef Singer","doi":"10.1515/med-2026-1499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) predominantly affects older patients, many of whom are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. Although the VIALE-A trial demonstrated improved survival with azacitidine plus venetoclax, its strict eligibility criteria may limit generalizability to routine clinical practice. We therefore evaluated real-world outcomes at our institution.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective single-centre cohort study of adult AML patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. Patients received azacitidine monotherapy (2014-2018) or azacitidine plus venetoclax (2019-2023). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests. VIALE-A eligibility was assessed retrospectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>21 patients met the inclusion criteria: 8 received azacitidine alone and 13 azacitidine plus venetoclax. Median age was 79 years. Patients receiving azacitidine plus venetoclax completed more treatment cycles (median 7 vs. 4). Median OS was 12.6 vs. 9.1 months with azacitidine alone (p=0.416). Median PFS was 10.0 vs. 8.1 months, respectively (p=0.707). Overall, only 66 % of patients fulfilled the VIALE-A eligibility criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Azacitidine plus venetoclax was associated with numerically longer OS and PFS, although differences were not statistically significant. Only two-thirds of patients would have met VIALE-A eligibility criteria, highlighting the challenges of translating trial outcomes into routine practice. Larger multicentre studies are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":19715,"journal":{"name":"Open Medicine","volume":"21 1","pages":"20261499"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13482781/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2026-1499","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) predominantly affects older patients, many of whom are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. Although the VIALE-A trial demonstrated improved survival with azacitidine plus venetoclax, its strict eligibility criteria may limit generalizability to routine clinical practice. We therefore evaluated real-world outcomes at our institution.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-centre cohort study of adult AML patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. Patients received azacitidine monotherapy (2014-2018) or azacitidine plus venetoclax (2019-2023). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests. VIALE-A eligibility was assessed retrospectively.
Results: 21 patients met the inclusion criteria: 8 received azacitidine alone and 13 azacitidine plus venetoclax. Median age was 79 years. Patients receiving azacitidine plus venetoclax completed more treatment cycles (median 7 vs. 4). Median OS was 12.6 vs. 9.1 months with azacitidine alone (p=0.416). Median PFS was 10.0 vs. 8.1 months, respectively (p=0.707). Overall, only 66 % of patients fulfilled the VIALE-A eligibility criteria.
Conclusions: Azacitidine plus venetoclax was associated with numerically longer OS and PFS, although differences were not statistically significant. Only two-thirds of patients would have met VIALE-A eligibility criteria, highlighting the challenges of translating trial outcomes into routine practice. Larger multicentre studies are warranted.
目的:急性髓性白血病(AML)主要影响老年患者,其中许多患者不适合进行强化化疗。尽管VIALE-A试验显示阿扎胞苷加venetoclax可提高生存率,但其严格的资格标准可能限制了常规临床实践的推广。因此,我们评估了我们机构的实际结果。方法:我们对不适合强化化疗的成年AML患者进行了回顾性单中心队列研究。患者接受阿扎胞苷单药治疗(2014-2018)或阿扎胞苷加venetoclax(2019-2023)。使用Kaplan-Meier估计和log-rank检验分析总生存期(OS)和无进展生存期(PFS)。回顾性评估VIALE-A适格性。结果:21例患者符合纳入标准:8例患者单独使用阿扎胞苷,13例患者使用阿扎胞苷联合venetoclax。中位年龄为79岁。接受阿扎胞苷加venetoclax治疗的患者完成了更多的治疗周期(中位7 vs. 4)。中位OS为12.6个月,而阿扎胞苷单独使用为9.1个月(p=0.416)。中位PFS分别为10.0个月和8.1个月(p=0.707)。总体而言,只有66 %的患者符合VIALE-A的资格标准。结论:阿扎胞苷加venetoclax与较长的OS和PFS相关,尽管差异无统计学意义。只有三分之二的患者符合VIALE-A的资格标准,这突出了将试验结果转化为常规实践的挑战。有必要进行更大规模的多中心研究。
期刊介绍:
Open Medicine is an open access journal that provides users with free, instant, and continued access to all content worldwide. The primary goal of the journal has always been a focus on maintaining the high quality of its published content. Its mission is to facilitate the exchange of ideas between medical science researchers from different countries. Papers connected to all fields of medicine and public health are welcomed. Open Medicine accepts submissions of research articles, reviews, case reports, letters to editor and book reviews.