Clinical Utilization and Outcomes of Hypomethylating Agents and Venetoclax in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndrome – a Multicenter Retrospective Analysis

Background: Hypomethylating agents (HMA) with venetoclax (VEN) have shown encouraging clinical efficacy in single arm clinical trials for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (Garcia JS et al. ASH 2023, Zeidan AM et al. Am J Hematol. 2023). Many centers have started utilizing HMA-VEN in the clinical management of MDS due to unmet need, pending results of the ongoing phase 3 randomized clinical trial (VERONA) using this combination. However, real world studies with large sample size investigating the use of these agents in MDS, practice patterns and clinical outcomes are lacking.

Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study of 13 US academic medical centers. We included contemporary cohorts of adults (age≥18 years) with MDS who were treated with upfront combination of HMA-VEN, upfront HMA monotherapy, or VEN added after inadequate response or progression on HMA (post-HMA failure VEN). Outcomes analyzed includes clinical response, adverse events (AE) of interest, dose administration and survival. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics. Overall survival and event free survival (EFS: progression, leukemic transformation, death as events) analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier method. Determinants of outcomes were analyzed using multivariable regression models. All analyses were conducted at a significance level of p<0.05.

Results: Among 454 patients included, 258 patients received VEN in combination with HMA [upfront HMA-VEN (n=175), post-HMA failure VEN (n=83)] and 196 patients received HMA monotherapy. Median age was 69 (59-77) years and majority of patients had MDS with excess blasts (75%), high risk (31.9%) or very-high (41.8%) risk disease by IPSS-R, 23.7% had therapy related disease, 33% had deletion17p or TP53 mutation and 40.9% underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation. VEN was predominantly started in outpatient setting (78.6%) with tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis and VEN doses ranged from 70-400mg, adjusted for concomitant antifungal drugs. Incidence of TLS was minimal (No TLS- 92.9%, lab-only TLS 6.2%, 1 pt with clinical TLS). Neutropenic fever was the main AE noted [upfront VEN-HMA (34.2%), HMA monotherapy (22.5%), post-HMA VEN (44.5%)].

In the upfront setting, response rate was significantly higher with HMA-VEN than HMA monotherapy (CR: 33% vs 12%; marrow CR: 40% vs 27%, p<.001). VEN given in the post HMA failure setting also resulted in encouraging response rates (CR 10%, marrow CR 32%). After adjusting for covariates in multivariable analysis, patients treated with HMA-VEN in the upfront setting had significantly improved event free survival as compared to HMA monotherapy (HR 0.59, HR 0.44-0.78, p<0.01), but overall survival did not reach statistical significance (overall survival HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.57-1.04, p=0.08).

Conclusions: In this large multicenter retrospective analysis from US academic medical centers, we found that VEN in combination with HMA resulted in encouraging clinical outcomes and was effectively administered in the outpatient setting with minimal TLS. Infection risk management and supportive measures would be important to improve the ability to use this treatment widely, pending results of the ongoing phase 3 randomized clinical trial. Updated results with additional variables will be available at the main meeting.