TABLE 1.
Baseline characteristics of patients treated with venetoclax and decitabine or azacitidine.
| Baseline Characteristics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic |
All patients (N = 74) |
Decitabine‐venetoclax (N = 48) |
Azacitidine‐venetoclax (N = 26) |
| Male sex—no. (%) | 39 (52.7) | 27 (56.3) | 12 (46.2) |
| Age at diagnosis—year | |||
| Median | 73 | 73 | 73 |
| Range | 26–85 | 26–84 | 58–85 |
| Race—no. (%)A | |||
| Black | 23 (31.9) | 16 (34.8) | 7 (26.9) |
| White | 47 (65.3) | 29 (63.0) | 18 (69.2) |
| Other | 1 (1.4) | 1 (2.2) | 1 (3.8) |
| ELN 2017 cytogenetic risk group—no. (%)B | |||
| Favorable | 14 (19.7) | 9 (19.5) | 5 (20.0) |
| Intermediate | 15 (21.1) | 9 (19.5) | 6 (24.0) |
| Adverse | 42 (59.2) | 28 (60.1) | 14 (56.0) |
| Molecular aberrations—no. (%)C | |||
| ASXL1 | 15 (23.0) | 9 (21.4) | 6 (26.1) |
| CEBPA biallelic | 2 (3.1) | 2 (4.8) | 0 (0) |
| CEBPA monoallelic | 4 (6.2) | 4 (9.5) | 0 (0) |
| DNMT3A | 12 (18.5) | 8 (19.0) | 4 (17.4) |
| FLT3‐ITD or FLT3‐TKDD | 18 (27.3) | 12 (27.9) | 5 (20.8) |
| IDH1 | 6 (9.2) | 2 (4.8) | 4 (17.4) |
| IDH2 | 10 (15.4) | 6 (14.3) | 4 (17.4) |
| KRAS | 6 (9.2) | 2 (4.8) | 4 (17.4) |
| NPM1 E | 18 (27.3) | 9 (21.4) | 9 (37.5) |
| NRAS | 13 (20.0) | 6 (14.3) | 7 (30.4) |
| RUNX1 | 10 (15.4) | 7 (16.7) | 3 (13.0) |
| SF3B1 | 2 (3.1) | 0 (0) | 2 (8.7) |
| SRSF2 | 14 (21.5) | 8 (19.0) | 6 (26.1) |
| STAG2 | 8 (12.3) | 7 (16.7) | 1 (4.3) |
| TP53 | 14 (21.5) | 10 (23.8) | 4 (17.4) |
| U2AF1 | 4 (5.4) | 3 (7.1) | 1 (4.3) |
| ZRSR2 | 1 (1.5) | 1 (2.4) | 0 (0) |
| AML‐MRC—no. (%)F | 27 (38.6) | 20 (42.6) | 7 (30.4) |
| Previously diagnosed MDS—no. (%) | 12 (16.2) | 7 (14.6) | 5 (19.2) |
| Charlson Comorbidity Index Score | |||
| Median | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Range | 3–12 | 4–12 | 3–12 |
| ECOG at diagnosis | |||
| Median | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Range | 0–4 | 0–4 | 0–4 |
| Stem cell transplant—no. (%) | 1 (1.4) | 1 (2.1) | 0 (0) |
| Total number of cycles | |||
| Median | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Range | 1–29 | 1–29 | 1–19 |
A: Race was known in 72 of 74 patients.
B: ELN cytogenetic risk was known in 71 of 74 patients at diagnosis.
C: Sixty‐five of 74 patients had NGS evaluable at diagnosis.
D. One patient was positive for FLT3‐ITD by PCR, but no NGS assay was available at diagnosis.
E. One patient was positive for NPM1 by PCR, but no NGS assay was available at diagnosis.
F: Seventy of 74 patients were evaluable for AML‐MRC at the time of diagnosis.