Outcomes of Venetoclax‐Based Regimens Versus Intensive and Reduced‐Intensity Chemotherapy in Newly Diagnosed AML
Open Access
- 11 November 2026
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Cancer Medicine
- Vol. 15 (11)
Abstract
Background: Venetoclax‐based regimens (VEN) have been widely adopted as frontline therapeutic options for elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, comprehensive real‐world comparisons of VEN with conventional intensive or reduced‐intensity chemotherapy remain limited. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective study, we evaluated treatment patterns and outcomes in 1370 patients with newly diagnosed AML. Patients were classified into three cohorts according to their frontline treatment: intensive chemotherapy (IC), reduced‐intensity chemotherapy (rIC), or VEN. Analyses were performed in both the overall cohort and elderly patients (aged ≥ 60 years), including baseline comparisons, uni‐ and multivariable analyses, and subgroup analyses. Results: Baseline characteristics differed substantially among treatment cohorts; patients treated with VEN were older and had a higher prevalence of adverse‐risk disease than those receiving IC or rIC . In the overall cohort, VEN achieved an overall response rate ( ORR ) comparable to IC and higher than rIC (74.3% vs. 60.2%, p = 0.034). Among elderly patients, VEN was associated with a higher ORR than rIC (75.7% vs. 50.5%, p = 0.001), and the favorable ORR findings remained significant after correction for multiple testing. VEN was also associated with a lower 60‐day early‐death rate than rIC in elderly patients (1.4% vs. 20.0%, p < 0.001), suggesting better early treatment tolerability. Median event‐free survival was longer with VEN than with rIC in the primary elderly cohort analysis (9.6 vs. 6.6 months, p = 0.031), and this difference persisted in a sensitivity analysis censoring at allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, although it was attenuated in landmark and propensity‐score‐based sensitivity analyses. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the two cohorts (15.9 vs. 11.0 months, p = 0.102). Conclusion: The higher response rate and lower early mortality with VEN were the most consistent findings, whereas comparative survival outcomes were considered supportive but exploratory.Funding Information
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JP24K11568)
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- Acute Myeloid Leukemia: 2025 Update on Diagnosis, Risk‐Stratification, and ManagementAmerican Journal of Hematology, 2025
- Venetoclax plus a hypomethylating agent versus cytarabine, aclarubicin, and granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor chemotherapy as a first‐line therapy for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: A propensity score–matched analysisCancer, 2024
- Real‐world effectiveness of intensive chemotherapy with 7&3 versus venetoclax and hypomethylating agent in acute myeloid leukemiaAmerican Journal of Hematology, 2023
- Prediction of survival with intensive chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukemiaAmerican Journal of Hematology, 2022
- Ten‐day decitabine with venetoclax versus intensive chemotherapy in relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia: A propensity score‐matched analysisCancer, 2021
- De novo acute myeloid leukemia: A population‐based study of outcome in the United States based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, 1980 to 2017Cancer, 2021
- Venetoclax with decitabine vs intensive chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukemia: A propensity score matched analysis stratified by risk of treatment‐related mortalityAmerican Journal of Hematology, 2020
- Mutations and Treatment Outcome in Cytogenetically Normal Acute Myeloid LeukemiaNew England Journal of Medicine, 2008
- Intensive chemotherapy is not recommended for patients aged >60 years who have myelodysplastic syndromes or acute myeloid leukemia with high‐risk karyotypesCancer, 2007
- A comparison of low‐dose cytarabine and hydroxyurea with or without all‐trans retinoic acid for acute myeloid leukemia and high‐risk myelodysplastic syndrome in patients not considered fit for intensive treatmentCancer, 2007