P053 | SURVEY OF THE VERO STUDY SITES FOR AML TREATMENT WITH VENETOCLAX PLUS AZACITIDINE IN ITALY

BACKGROUND: In patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy (IC), the combination of Venetoclax (VEN) with hypomethylating agents (azacitidine-Aza or decitabine) represents the cornerstone of the current treatment strategy. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to collect real-world data on the management of AML patients ineligible for IC in Italian hematologic centers using VEN+Aza regimen. METHODS: A structured questionnaire was completed, through eCRF from Mar to Dec 2024,by the 28 sites participating in the VERO observational study across Italy (15 hospitals, 10 academic and 3 referral sites-IRCCS), consisting of 24 items, some with branched logic, divided into distinct sections: center characteristics, patient management, antifungal prophylaxis, routine VEN pre-treatment tests , approaches to diagnosis and management of adverse events (AEs), use of G-CSF, assessment of patients' quality of life and availability of home care services. RESULTS: Table 1 shows the survey results. All 28 sites report having consolidated experience in using VEN, regardless of the type of facility. The mean number of new diagnoses/year (38.1, median=35), the overall available hospital beds (21.4) together with the share (47.6%) dedicated to these patients indicate the high impact of AML on the daily practice. Patients are managed as outpatient in 39% of cases, while in 7% as an inpatient whereas in 54% by a mixed approach. Eighty-two % of the sites routinely use antifungal prophylaxis (mainly Posaconazole). Twenty-one % of the centers routinely perform a total body CT scan while 89% of the centers perform a complete cardiological screening (ECG and echocardiogram) before starting the treatment. G-CSF is used in 75% of the centers, but mainly in case of febrile neutropenia and/or severe neutropenia (19 sites), and as prophylaxis (6 sites). A TLS screening panel as per SmPC is performed in 86% of cases and a complete diagnostic work-up for febrile events is conducted by 86% of participants. CONCLUSION: The data show notable variability in the pre-treatment screening methods and in the management of AEs. Indeed, a considerable heterogeneity has been detected in the use of antifungal prophylaxis and G-CSF, highlighting a lack of uniformity in center-approach. In addition, few centers evaluate patients' quality of life at baseline and are supported by home care services, indicating the need to integrate this aspect into treatment paths.