Back

A simplified risk model for pretreatment stratification of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia patients treated with venetoclax and azacitidine

Islam, N.; Reuben, J. S.; Dale, J. L.; Zhang, J.; Coates, J. W.; Sapiah, K.; Markson, F. R.; Wu, L.; Kulkarni, U. V.; Boyiadzis, M.; Smith, C. A.

2024-12-03 oncology
10.1101/2024.12.02.24318344
Show abstract

Venetoclax plus azacitidine (ven/aza) is a new standard of care for adult Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) patients who are not candidates for intensive therapies. Risk stratification approaches have been proposed to identify patients with favorable, intermediate, and adverse therapeutic outcomes following ven/aza and other lower intensive therapies. However, most have been developed for retrospective data analyses and have limitations in their application to upfront risk stratification of newly diagnosed patients. Here, we describe an AML risk model, termed the Refined Risk Model (RRM), that is specific for ven/aza, addresses important real-world considerations and utilizes pathology features that have the potential to be available relatively quickly-and-broadly following diagnosis. The RRM was developed and internally validated using a single center cohort of 316 AML patients from the University of Colorado treated upfront with ven/aza, and then externally validated on an AML cohort from a nationwide electronic health record-derived de-identified AML database. The RRM effectively stratified patients into Adverse, Intermediate, and Favorable groups across both the internal and external cohorts; it performed well in subsets with or without allogeneic transplant recipients, demonstrated tolerance to missing data, and showed numerical performance comparable to or exceeding the existing alternatives such as the European Leukemia Network (ELN 2022) and molecular prognostic risk signature (mPRS) models. These findings suggest that the RRM may have potential application in defining the prognostic mortality risk for newly diagnosed AML patients, which may help guide clinical trial design and execution as well as other important elements of AML clinical decision support.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Leukemia
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
12.5%
2
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 46%
11.2%
3
JCO Precision Oncology
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
7.6%
4
Cancers
based on 57 papers
Top 3%
6.4%
5
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
based on 14 papers
Top 0.4%
5.0%
6
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 43%
4.5%
7
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
based on 14 papers
Top 0.5%
3.9%
50% of probability mass above
8
Blood Advances
based on 16 papers
Top 0.5%
3.0%
9
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 21%
3.0%
10
Clinical Cancer Research
based on 22 papers
Top 2%
2.8%
11
npj Precision Oncology
based on 14 papers
Top 0.9%
2.8%
12
Journal of Clinical Investigation
based on 50 papers
Top 1%
2.4%
13
Cancer Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 2%
2.4%
14
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
based on 100 papers
Top 6%
2.3%
15
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
based on 13 papers
Top 1%
2.3%
16
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 11%
1.6%
17
Blood
based on 14 papers
Top 0.7%
1.3%
18
JAMA
based on 17 papers
Top 0.6%
1.3%
19
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 22%
1.3%
20
Frontiers in Oncology
based on 34 papers
Top 5%
1.2%
21
Neuro-Oncology Advances
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
23
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
based on 14 papers
Top 4%
0.7%
24
PLOS Computational Biology
based on 141 papers
Top 11%
0.7%