Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
e23235 Background: Prior studies have reported improved outcomes for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in academic over nonacademic settings potentially due to the availability of multidisciplinary teams, clinical trials and increased resources (1,2). Our institution has partnered with community practices to further evaluate this disparity. In this study, we analyzed treatment outcomes when nonacademic centers partnered with academic centers to treat AML using a regimen of venetoclax and a hypomethylating agent. Methods: We reviewed 92 patients with newly diagnosed AML treated with venetoclax and either decitabine or azacitidine at an academic center (n = 57) or community practice with academic center support (n = 35). When partnering with the community, patients received the first cycle of therapy at an academic center. Before discharge, our team completed financial screening, scheduled follow up appointments and provided prescriptions. The primary objective was to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR) with a secondary evaluation of differences in chemotherapy management and complications. Results: Patients in the academic setting tended to have more adverse risk disease (80.7% vs. 74.3%, p = 0.36) according to the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) (table). The overall survival (OS) of all patients was 10.7 months (95% CI 9.4-15.7) with no significant difference between the groups. The ORR was similar between the community and academic settings (40.0% vs. 36.8%, p = 0.46). The complete remission (CR) rate was 11.4% in the community versus 19.3% in the academic setting (p = 0.67), and the CR rates were improved in the academic group versus the community after cycle 2 (12.9% vs. 0%, p = 0.72) and cycle 3 (25.0% vs. 0%, p = 0.46). Adverse events were comparable, except for increased rates of fatigue (80.7 vs. 54.3%, p = 0.01) and diarrhea (33.3 vs. 11.4%, p = 0.04) in the academic setting. Conclusions: Contrary to prior studies, our evaluation and ongoing partnerships support the transition of AML treatment to a community setting with academic consultation. Although there were some differences in adverse events, the OS and ORR were similar. Furthermore, this study did not identify any significant safety concerns that could prevent patients from receiving this regimen in either setting. Our goal is to continue evaluating this partnership, as we design prospective studies to improve the care of this patient population. 1. Giri S et al. OS of AML Treated at Academic Center Vs Nonacademic Center. Blood 2015. 2. Halpern AB et al. Practice patterns & outcomes for adults with AML. Hematol Am Soc 2020.Table: see text
Pham et al. (Sat,) studied this question.