Impact of FLT3 Inhibitor Maintenance Therapy on Post-Transplant Outcomes in FLT3-Mutated AML Patients: A Real World Analysis from the German Registry for Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Cell Therapy (DRST)

Introduction: FLT3 is mutated in 30% of AML and is associated with poor prognosis due to frequent and early relapse, leading to poor outcomes even after allo-SCT. Clinical trials using post-transplant FLT3 inhibitors have demonstrated feasibility, safety, and encouraging outcomes. This study, conducted by the DRST, aims to assess the impact of FLT3 inhibitors on the outcomes in a large cohort of FLT3-mutated AML patients post allo-HCT. Patients and Methods: We identified 923 patients (52% male, 48% female) who underwent allo-SCT for, HLA compatible donors between the years 2011-2023 for FLT3-mutated and were reported to DRST. The median age at transplant was 54 years (range 18-77). Seventy percent had a Karnofsky index >80%. The median time from diagnosis to transplant was 120 days (range 37-789). Ninety-five percent received PBSC grafts, and 51% underwent myeloablative conditioning. All patients were transplanted in CR1; 21% were MRD+, 24% were MRD-, and 55% had unknown MRD status. Thirteen percent (n=123) received mainly off-label use of FLT3-inhibitor maintenance after allo-SCT (41% Sorafenib, 34% Midostaurin, 3% Gilteritinib, 22% unknown), while 43% (n=400) did not and in 43% (n=400) it was unknown. Results: The 5-year relapse-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) for the entire population was 53% (95% CI [49; 57]) and 62% (95% CI [58; 66]), respectively. Patients receiving maintenance therapy had statistically significant higher RFS with HR 2.1 (95% CI [1.4; 3.2], p<0.0001) and 5-year RFS 70% (95% CI [61; 80]) vs. 47% (95% CI [42; 54]), as well as OS (HR 2.9 (95% CI [1.7; 4.9]), p<0.0001, 5-year OS 81% (95% CI [73; 91]) vs. 57% (95% CI [51; 63])). Graft-versus-host disease relapse-free survival (GRFS) was significantly improved with maintenance therapy: HR 1.6 (95% CI [1.2; 2.2], p=0.0024) and 5-year GRFS 45% (95% CI [35; 58]) vs. 33% (95% CI [27; 39]). Non-relapse mortality (NRM) was significantly lower in the maintenance group (HR 4.8 (95% CI [1.8; 13.1]), p=0.002) with 5-year NRM 4% (95% CI [0; 8]) vs. 19% (95% CI [15; 24]). The cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) at 5 years was comparable between both groups: 26% (95% CI [17; 35]) vs. 33% (95% CI [28; 39]), and the CIR over time was not statistically significant but with a positive impact of maintenance therapy (HR 1.5 (95% CI [1.0; 2.2]), p=0.078). In subgroup analysis based on MRD status, both MRD+ and MRD- subgroups showed improved OS and RFS with maintenance therapy. MRD positive patients had a 5-year OS of 75% (95% CI [60; 92]) with maintenance vs. 52% (95% CI [41; 67]) without (HR 2.8 (95% CI [1.3; 5.8]), p=0.0034), and a 5-year RFS of 64% (95% CI [50; 82]) with maintenance vs. 44% (95% CI [34; 57]) without (HR 1.9 (95% CI [1.0; 3.4]), p=0.0273). MRD negative patients had a 5-year OS of 87% (95% CI [76; 98]) with maintenance vs. 58% (95% CI [49; 69]) without (HR 3.4 (95% CI, [1.4; 8.5]), p=0.0021), and a 5-year RFS of 77% (95% CI [65; 92]) with maintenance vs. 45% (95% CI [36; 56]) without (HR 2.8 (95% CI [1.4; 5.6]), p=0.0010). There were no statistically significant differences in CIR, but a positive impact of maintenance therapy in both, MRD+ and MRD- subgroups. NRM was comparable in the MRD+ group, but MRD- patients receiving maintenance had lower NRM (5-year NRM 3% (95% CI [0; 7])) compared to those who did not (5-year NRM 23% (95% CI [15; 31]), HR 8.4 (95% CI [1.1; 62.6]), p=0.0380). There were no statistically significant differences in GRFS for MRD+ patients, while MRD- patients showed higher GRFS with maintenance (5-year GRFS 54% (95% CI [38; 77])) vs. without (5-year GRFS 37% (95% CI [29; 48]), HR 1.9 (95% CI [1.1; 3.3]), p=0.0091). Conclusion: Real world data from a large national registry showed that maintenance therapy with FLT3 inhibitors significantly improves RFS and OS in FLT3-mutated AML patients, irrespective of MRD status.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Blood
Published
2024-11-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2024-210920
Primary Topic
Acute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impact of FLT3 Inhibitor Maintenance Therapy on Post-Transplant Outcomes in FLT3-Mutated AML Patients: A Real World Analysis from the German Registry for Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Cell Therapy (DRST)

Matthias Stelljes, Caroline Pabst, Joerg Thomas Bittenbring, Christof Scheid et al.
Blood
Acute Myeloid Leukemia Research
article

Impact of FLT3 Inhibitor Maintenance Therapy on Post-Transplant Outcomes in FLT3-Mutated AML Patients: A Real World Analysis from the German Registry for Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Cell Therapy (DRST)

Matthias Stelljes, Caroline Pabst, Joerg Thomas Bittenbring, Christof Scheid, Wolfgang Andreas Bethge, Franziska Hanke, Katharina Fleischhauer, Gerald Wulf, Matthias Eder, Inken Hilgendorf, Radwan Massoud, Friedrich Stölzel, Christoph Schmid, Igor Wolfgang Blau, Guido Kobbe, Sarah Flossdorf, Andreas Burchert, Elisa Sala, Uwe Platzbecker, Matthias Edinger, Robert Zeiser, Thomas Schroeder, Nicolaus Kroeger
article en

Abstract

Introduction: FLT3 is mutated in 30% of AML and is associated with poor prognosis due to frequent and early relapse, leading to poor outcomes even after allo-SCT. Clinical trials using post-transplant FLT3 inhibitors have demonstrated feasibility, safety, and encouraging outcomes. This study, conducted by the DRST, aims to assess the impact of FLT3 inhibitors on the outcomes in a large cohort of FLT3-mutated AML patients post allo-HCT. Patients and Methods: We identified 923 patients (52% male, 48% female) who underwent allo-SCT for, HLA compatible donors between the years 2011-2023 for FLT3-mutated and were reported to DRST. The median age at transplant was 54 years (range 18-77). Seventy percent had a Karnofsky index >80%. The median time from diagnosis to transplant was 120 days (range 37-789). Ninety-five percent received PBSC grafts, and 51% underwent myeloablative conditioning. All patients were transplanted in CR1; 21% were MRD+, 24% were MRD-, and 55% had unknown MRD status. Thirteen percent (n=123) received mainly off-label use of FLT3-inhibitor maintenance after allo-SCT (41% Sorafenib, 34% Midostaurin, 3% Gilteritinib, 22% unknown), while 43% (n=400) did not and in 43% (n=400) it was unknown. Results: The 5-year relapse-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) for the entire population was 53% (95% CI [49; 57]) and 62% (95% CI [58; 66]), respectively. Patients receiving maintenance therapy had statistically significant higher RFS with HR 2.1 (95% CI [1.4; 3.2], p<0.0001) and 5-year RFS 70% (95% CI [61; 80]) vs. 47% (95% CI [42; 54]), as well as OS (HR 2.9 (95% CI [1.7; 4.9]), p<0.0001, 5-year OS 81% (95% CI [73; 91]) vs. 57% (95% CI [51; 63])). Graft-versus-host disease relapse-free survival (GRFS) was significantly improved with maintenance therapy: HR 1.6 (95% CI [1.2; 2.2], p=0.0024) and 5-year GRFS 45% (95% CI [35; 58]) vs. 33% (95% CI [27; 39]). Non-relapse mortality (NRM) was significantly lower in the maintenance group (HR 4.8 (95% CI [1.8; 13.1]), p=0.002) with 5-year NRM 4% (95% CI [0; 8]) vs. 19% (95% CI [15; 24]). The cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) at 5 years was comparable between both groups: 26% (95% CI [17; 35]) vs. 33% (95% CI [28; 39]), and the CIR over time was not statistically significant but with a positive impact of maintenance therapy (HR 1.5 (95% CI [1.0; 2.2]), p=0.078). In subgroup analysis based on MRD status, both MRD+ and MRD- subgroups showed improved OS and RFS with maintenance therapy. MRD positive patients had a 5-year OS of 75% (95% CI [60; 92]) with maintenance vs. 52% (95% CI [41; 67]) without (HR 2.8 (95% CI [1.3; 5.8]), p=0.0034), and a 5-year RFS of 64% (95% CI [50; 82]) with maintenance vs. 44% (95% CI [34; 57]) without (HR 1.9 (95% CI [1.0; 3.4]), p=0.0273). MRD negative patients had a 5-year OS of 87% (95% CI [76; 98]) with maintenance vs. 58% (95% CI [49; 69]) without (HR 3.4 (95% CI, [1.4; 8.5]), p=0.0021), and a 5-year RFS of 77% (95% CI [65; 92]) with maintenance vs. 45% (95% CI [36; 56]) without (HR 2.8 (95% CI [1.4; 5.6]), p=0.0010). There were no statistically significant differences in CIR, but a positive impact of maintenance therapy in both, MRD+ and MRD- subgroups. NRM was comparable in the MRD+ group, but MRD- patients receiving maintenance had lower NRM (5-year NRM 3% (95% CI [0; 7])) compared to those who did not (5-year NRM 23% (95% CI [15; 31]), HR 8.4 (95% CI [1.1; 62.6]), p=0.0380). There were no statistically significant differences in GRFS for MRD+ patients, while MRD- patients showed higher GRFS with maintenance (5-year GRFS 54% (95% CI [38; 77])) vs. without (5-year GRFS 37% (95% CI [29; 48]), HR 1.9 (95% CI [1.1; 3.3]), p=0.0091). Conclusion: Real world data from a large national registry showed that maintenance therapy with FLT3 inhibitors significantly improves RFS and OS in FLT3-mutated AML patients, irrespective of MRD status.

BloodVol. 144(Supplement 1)
Universität Hamburg (DE), University of Freiburg (DE), Philipps University of Marburg (DE), Heidelberg University (DE), University of Münster (DE), University Hospital Augsburg (DE), University Hospital Heidelberg (DE), University Hospital Regensburg (DE), Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE), Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie (DE), Düsseldorf University Hospital (DE), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE), University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (DE), Essen University Hospital (DE), University Hospital Leipzig (DE), Jena University Hospital (DE), University Hospital Cologne (DE), University Hospital Ulm (DE), Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE), University of Duisburg-Essen (DE), University of Göttingen (DE), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE), University of Lübeck (DE)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 64%
Acute Myeloid Leukemia Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.