Lee, Ju‐Whei

PURPOSE Systematic integration of tobacco cessation treatment within cancer centers is needed to improve smoking cessation outcomes among cancer patients and survivors. The current study characterizes baseline rates of tobacco use, use of cessation support, and changes in tobacco use over time among 756 participants diagnosed with cancer and enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS Participants completed surveys at trial enrollment and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize patient characteristics and selected items from the Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ). Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the time point effect on tobacco product use. RESULTS At baseline, 11% of participants (n = 740) currently smoked cigarettes. Among participants with data available at all time points (n = 443), prevalence of current smoking was stable over time, with 7.2% of participants (n = 32) reporting current smoking at baseline, 7.0% (n = 31) at the 3-month follow-up assessment, and 6.8% (n = 30) at the 6-month follow-up assessment. Most participants (n = 77/104) who smoked cigarettes within the year prior to their cancer diagnosis continued smoking after their diagnosis, and during (n = 44/72) and following completion (n = 30/46) of their treatment. Sixty-two percent of participants (n = 81) who were currently smoking at baseline reported using smoking cessation medication and 32.1% reported use of nonpharmacologic smoking cessation support since their cancer diagnosis. In longitudinal analyses, the odds of using cigarettes since their cancer diagnosis, 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up was higher than the odds of using cigarettes for the past 30 days at baseline (odds ratio [OR] = 1.97, OR = 1.62, and OR = 1.50, respectively; all p s < .01). CONCLUSION Smoking persists over time among patients with cancer enrolled in therapeutic cancer trials. Findings highlight the importance of increasing access to integrated and longitudinal smoking cessation support.

Abstract Background: Relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL) remain challenging to treat, particularly in older patients and those with a T-cell phenotype. Venetoclax (VEN), a selective BCL-2 inhibitor, has shown preclinical synergy with vincristine (VCR) in multiple preclinical ALL models. Following the previously reported establishment of the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D), we now report the results of the Phase II (Ph2) portion of EA9152 (VEN 600 mg daily with weekly L-VCR 2.25 mg/m² IV or VCR 1.5 mg/m2 IV capped at 2 mg), evaluating efficacy and safety in this high-risk population. Methods: This open-label, multicenter Phase II study enrolled adults (≥18 years) with R/R B- or T-cell ALL or LL. The phase II portion of this trial was a single-arm, open-label study evaluating the combination of VEN (600 mg po D1–28) with either L-VCR (2.25 mg/m² IV weekly x4) or vincristine sulfate (VCR) (1.4 mg/m² IV weekly x4). Following the market withdrawal of L-VCR in the United States in April 2022, no new patients were initiated on this formulation and patients already receiving L-VCR were transitioned to VCR at the start of their next treatment cycle or sooner if necessitated by drug availability. Prior VCR but not VEN exposure was permitted in Ph2. The primary endpoint was achievement of a complete response or complete response with incomplete count recovery CR + CRi rate by end of cycle 3. Secondary endpoints included measurable residual disease (MRD) response, progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The association of phenotype with response and time-to-event were evaluated using Fisher's exact test and the Cox proportional hazards model, respectively. Results: Twenty-one eligible patients were treated (B-cell ALL/LL: n=12; T-cell ALL/LL: n=9). The trial was terminated early after 22/56 patients were accrued on account of withdrawal of sponsor support. Median age was 50 years and 76.2% were male. Performance status was 0–1 in 85.7%. All patients had received prior chemotherapy; 47.6% had undergone prior transplant. Median number of treatment cycles was 1 (2 for B-cell, 1 for T-cell). By end of cycle 3, no patients in the B-cell cohort (0/12; 90% CI, 0.00–0.22) achieved CR or CRi, 8 had stable disease (SD). In the T-cell cohort, 1 of 9 patients (11.1%; 90% CI, 0.01–0.43) achieved CR, 1 achieved PR and 1 had SD. There was no statistically significant difference in CR + CRi rate between phenotypes (p=0.43). None of the patients achieved an MRD-negative CR/CRi by flow cytometry or molecular methods. At the time of this analysis, 16 of 21 patients had died. Median overall survival (OS) was 4.3 months (95% CI, 1.5–22.0) for B-cell and 10.2 months (95% CI, 2.0–16.4) for T-cell patients (HR 1.32, p=0.60). Median PFS was 2.9 months (95% CI, 1.7–3.7) for B-cell and 1.2 months (95% CI, 0.7–4.6) for T-cell cohorts (HR 2.18, p=0.18). Grade 3–5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in most patients. One T-cell patient experienced grade 5 respiratory failure. Among 16 patients enrolled under the revised protocol using VCR, only 1 experienced grade 3 peripheral motor neuropathy, and no peripheral sensory neuropathy was reported (combined AE rate 0.06; 90% CI, 0.00–0.26). Tumor lysis syndrome was not observed in this cohort. Conclusions: The combination of VEN at the established RP2D and L-VCR/VCR was feasible and had an acceptable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with R/R ALL/LL. However, response rates, including CR/CRi and MRD negativity, were limited, particularly in the B-cell cohort. Median OS and PFS remain poor in both subtypes, highlighting the need for improved strategies in this high-risk population. Venetoclax, in combination with other chemotherapy regimens, has shown encouraging response rates warranting continued exploration of its benefit in ALL.

AbstractIntroductionRelapsed or refractory (r/r) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL) remains a therapeutic challenge. Preclinical data in both B‐ and T‐ALL suggests synergy of venetoclax (VEN) with vincristine (VCR). We designed a phase I/II trial (EA9152) of the combination of L‐VCR and VEN for patients with r/r B‐or T‐cell ALL or LL. Here, we report the safety and efficacy outcomes of the phase I portion of this trial (NCT03504644).MethodsIn a 3+3 dose escalation design, r/r ALL subjects were given single‐agent VEN doses reaching 400, 600, or 800 mg for the three respective dose levels. Weekly L‐VCR at 2.25 mg/m2 IV was started on D15 of cycle 1. The primary phase I objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination.ResultsAmong the 18 patients in phase I, grade ≥ 3 treatment‐related adverse events were reported in 89% of treated patients. Two patients (two of three) at dose level 3 experienced dose‐limiting toxicities. Therefore, the MTD of the combination was determined to be dose level 2 (VEN 600 mg). Twenty‐two percent of evaluable patients (N = 4) achieved a complete response, with two of them showing no evidence of measurable residual disease (MRD).ConclusionThe combination of VEN and L‐VCR was found to be safe for patients with r/r ALL and encouraging preliminary efficacy, including MRD negative responses. With the removal of L‐VCR from the US market, the phase 2 portion of this trial is actively enrolling with vincristine sulfate.

ImportanceThere is substantial interest in capturing cancer treatment tolerability from the patient’s perspective using patient-reported outcomes (PROs).ObjectiveTo examine whether a PRO question, item 5 from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General General Physical Wellbeing Scale (GP5), was associated with early treatment discontinuation (ETD) due to adverse events.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis prospective survey study was conducted from February to April 2023. Among participants in the ECOG-ACRIN E1A11 trial (a phase 3, parallel design trial conducted between 2013 and 2019), patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomized to receive bortezomib (VRd) or carfilzomib (KRd) plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction therapy. The GP5 item was administered at baseline (pretreatment) and at 1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months postbaseline. Eligible participants included patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated at community oncology practices or academic medical centers in the US.ExposuresGP5 response options were “very much,” “quite a bit,” “somewhat,” “a little bit,” and “not at all.” Responses at each assessment while undergoing treatment (1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months) were categorized as high adverse event bother (ie, “very much,” and “quite a bit”) and low adverse event bother (ie, “somewhat,” “a little bit,” or “not at all”). In addition, change from baseline to each assessment while undergoing treatment was calculated and categorized as worsening by 1 response category and 2 or more response categories.Main Outcome and MeasureETD due to adverse events (yes vs no) was analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for treatment group, performance status, gender, race, and disease stage.ResultsOf the 1087 participants in the original trial, 1058 (mean [SD] age 64 [9] years; 531 receiving VrD [50.2%]; 527 receiving KRd [49.8%]) responded to item GP5 and were included in the secondary analysis. A small proportion (142 patients [13.4%]) discontinued treatment early due to AEs. For those with high adverse-effect bother, GP5 while undergoing treatment was associated with ETD at 1 month (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.25-3.89), 2.8 months (aOR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.01-5.80), and 5.5 months (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.69-12.83). Worsening by 2 or more response categories on the GP5 was associated with ETD at 2.8 months (aOR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.64-5.54) and 5.5 months (aOR, 5.49; 95% CI, 1.45-20.76).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of the E1A11 trial, worse GP5 response was associated with ETD. These findings suggest that simple assessment of adverse-effect bother while receiving treatment is an efficient way to indicate treatment tolerability and ETD risk.

AbstractBackgroundTobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer.MethodsA modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C‐TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG‐ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression.ResultsA total of 740 patients completing the C‐TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69–7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64–10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02–0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods.ConclusionsGreater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Abstract Background: While cigarette smoking has declined among the U.S. general population, sale and use of non-cigarette alternative tobacco products (ATP; e.g., e-cigarettes, cigars) and dual use of cigarettes/ATPs are rising. Little is known about ATP use patterns in cancer survivors enrolled in clinical trials. We investigated prevalence of tobacco product use, and factors associated with past 30-day use, among patients with cancer in national trials. Methods: Cancer survivors (N = 756) enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials (2017–2021) completed a modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) which assessed baseline cigarette and ATP use since cancer diagnosis and in the past 30 days. Results: Patients were on average 59 years old, 70% male, and the mean time since cancer diagnosis was 26 months. Since diagnosis, cigarettes (21%) were the most common tobacco product used, followed by smokeless tobacco use (5%), cigars (4%), and e-cigarettes (2%). In the past 30 days, 12% of patients reported smoking cigarettes, 4% cigars, 4% using smokeless tobacco, and 2% e-cigarettes. Since cancer diagnosis, 5.5% of the sample reported multiple tobacco product use, and 3.0% reported multiple product use in the past 30 days. Males (vs. females; OR 4.33; P = 0 &lt; 0.01) and individuals not living with another person who smokes (vs. living with; OR, 8.07; P = 0 &lt; 0.01) were more likely to use ATPs only versus cigarettes only in the past 30 days. Conclusions: Among patients with cancer, cigarettes were the most prevalent tobacco product reported. Impact: Regardless, ATPs and multiple tobacco product use should be routinely assessed in cancer care settings.

12094 Background: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy patient-reported outcomes (PRO) item GP5 (“I am bothered by side effects of treatment”) estimates treatment tolerability. We aimed to extend our previous finding that GP5 predicts early aromatase inhibitor (AI) discontinuation (E1Z03, 96% White) in the racially diverse E1Z11 trial cohort. Methods: E1Z11 was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Research Base. Postmenopausal women initiating anastrozole per clinical care for ER+ stage I-III breast cancer with a pain score 0-3/10 and no rheumatologic comorbidities were eligible. Accrual of a racially diverse cohort of 1,000 women, including Black and Asian women, was planned. GP5 was administered prior to initiating anastrozole (trial baseline) and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. GP5 was scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much) and dichotomized as no/little treatment bother (0/1) or moderate/high treatment bother (2-4), consistent with previous analyses. A univariate Cox proportional hazards model estimated baseline GP5’s association with treatment duration via hazard ratio (HR). Early treatment discontinuation status was defined as treatment duration < 12 months with discontinuation not attributed to disease progression or death (n = 4), consistent with previous analyses. Results: 1,046 women enrolled from 6/2013-10/2018 (640 White, 201 Black, 205 Asian), including 590 (56%) from NCORP Community or Minority/Underserved Sites. Approximately 10% (100/987 with GP5 data) reported moderate/high treatment bother prior to initiating anastrozole. Anastrozole discontinuation rate at 1-year was 26.2% overall; it was lower among women with no/little treatment bother (25.7%, GP5 = 0-1) compared to moderate/high treatment bother prior to initiating anastrozole (34.7%, GP5 = 2-4; HR = 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.04-2.15, p = 0.027). Subgroup analyses by racial cohort showed a similar predictive effect of GP5 in the White (n = 606, HR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.12-2.77, p = 0.014) and Black (n = 184, HR = 1.85, 95% CI: 0.92-3.71, p = 0.079) cohorts, but not in the Asian cohort (n = 197, HR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.10-1.62, p = 0.20). Conclusions: Moderate/high treatment bother prior to starting anastrozole was observed in 10% of patients and associated with a higher risk of early discontinuation, except in Asian patients. Our findings support the presence of a treatment tolerability threshold which can be compromised by pre-treatment burden. Treatment tolerability may also be influenced by cultural and genetic factors, which will be explored in further analysis of genetic and PRO data. Clinical trial information: NCT01824836.

6514 Background: Tobacco use is a modifiable risk factor for adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Despite ASCO’s recommendation for assessment and treatment of tobacco use, integration into cancer care is suboptimal. Socioeconomic contexts influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment, but little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials. Methods: The NCI Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was centrally administered to participants enrolled in 10 ECOG ACRIN clinical trials (9 therapeutic, 1 imaging). We examined associations of NSD with patient-reported rates of receiving brief tobacco cessation support (i.e., Ask, Assist (counseling)) and cessation (past 30d quit attempts and duration). NSD was measured using the national Area Deprivation Index (ADI) based on participant’s zip code. Associations between ADI (low, intermediate, and high) and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression and ANOVA. Results: 740 patients, completing the C-TUQ between June 2017-October 2021, can be classified as 402 (54%) never smokers, 81 (11%) current smokers, and 257 (35%) former smokers. Patients were 70% male; 94% white; 3% Hispanic; mean age 58.8 (SD 9.0). Cancer diagnoses were 36% leukemia; 19% lymphoma, 18% prostate, 11% breast; 9% melanoma, 7% myeloma, and 0.5% head and neck. Patients were categorized into high (33%), intermediate (34%) and low (33%) disadvantaged neighborhoods. Patients in high (vs. low) disadvantaged neighborhoods were more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR = 3.90; 95% CI (confidence interval), 1.61 to 9.46; p = 0.0062) but less likely to report receiving counseling to help quit smoking (OR = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.73; p = 0.0234). Patients from high disadvantaged neighborhoods had the shortest quit duration, followed by patients from intermediate and low disadvantaged neighborhoods (mean = 145.78, 187.66, and 210.98 months, respectively, p = 0.0372). Conclusions: Greater socioeconomic neighborhood disadvantage was associated with increased assessment of tobacco use but decreased tobacco treatment referral, and the shortest quit duration. More research is needed to promote increased referral to tobacco treatment for individuals with cancer from disadvantaged neighborhoods to promote and sustain cessation.

Abstract Background: Relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL) remain a therapeutic challenge, especially in elderly patients(pts) or those with T-cell immunophenotype. Inhibition of apoptosis is an increasingly recognized mechanism for resistance to conventional chemotherapy. Recently, the oral bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax (VEN) has shown remarkable activity in a variety of hematologic malignancies. Preclinical data in both B- and T-ALL suggests synergy of VEN with vincristine(VCR). Liposomal VCR (L-VCR) is FDA approved for relapsed ALL having progressed following 2 or more antileukemia therapies. We designed a phase I/II trial (EA9152) of the combination of L-VCR and VEN for pts with r/r B-or T-cell ALL or LL. Here, we report for the first time the safety and efficacy outcomes of the phase I portion of this trial (NCT03504644). Methods: This open-label phase I/II study enrolled pts age&gt;=18 with ALL or LL who were R/R to multiagent chemotherapy. Subjects could have received prior VCR or VEN . In a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design, subjects were given a two week lead-in phase of single agent VEN in the following schedule: dose level 1 - 20, 50, 100, 200 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 400 mg on days 5 ‒ 42; dose level 2 - 50, 100, 200, 400 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 600 mg on days 5 ‒ 42; and dose level 3 ‒ 100, 200, 400, 600 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 800 mg on days 5 ‒ 42. Weekly L-VCR 2.25mg/m 2 IV was started on D15 of cycle 1, and starting day 1 for subsequent cycles (cycle 2+ = 28 days). For cycle 2 and beyond, VEN 400mg, 600mg, or 800mg based on dose level was given starting on day 1 of the cycle. Primary objective of the phase I portion was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of VEN in combination with L-VCR. Secondary objectives included determining preliminary response rates. Results: EA9152 was activated on April 26, 2018 and the phase I portion closed to accrual on March 2, 2021. Among the 18 pts in dose escalation (Table 1), the median age was 42 years (22-77). The majority of pts were male (56%), white (80%), and with a performance status (PS) of 1 (78%). Among 13 pts with disease diagnosis reported, 9 had ALL and 4 had LL. Seventeen of 18 (94%) reported previous chemotherapy, two of which had previous stem cell transplant. Median treatment cycles received is 1 (range 1-11). One patient, having received 11 cycles, remains on study at the time of data analysis. Grade &gt;=3 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 89% of treated pts, with neutrophil count decreased (67%), white blood cell decreased (56%), and anemia (50%) as the most common. One pt experienced grade 3 tumor lysis syndrome. Twelve pts were considered evaluable for MTD determination. Six pts were considered not evaluable for toxicity analysis on account of withdraw of consent for treatment (n=4) or rapid disease progression (n=2). Two pts (2 of 3) at dose level 3 experienced DLTs, one each of hypokalemia and heart failure. Therefore, the MTD of the combination was determined to be dose level 2 - VEN 50, 100, 200, 400 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 600 mg on days 5 ‒ 42 and for subsequent cycles, with L-VCR 2.25mg/m2 IV weekly. In regards to best overall responses observed (Table 2) 4 of 18 pts (22%) achieved complete response (CR), 4 patients (22%) had stable disease, and 7 (39%) had progressive disease. Two patients in CR were found to be measurable residual disease (MRD) negative as well. Conclusions: In the phase 1 portion of this study, the combination of VEN and L-VCR was found to be safe for patients with ALL and LL. The MTD of the combination was found to be VEN 600mg daily with encouraging preliminary efficacy seen including MRD negative responses. The phase 2 portion of this trial is actively enrolling with VEN 600mg daily starting C1D1. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palmisiano: Takeda: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Foundation One: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Claxton: Astellas: Other: Clinical Trial; Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Park: BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy. Podoltsev: Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squib: Honoraria; PharmaEssentia: Honoraria; CTI BioPharma: Honoraria. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy. Dinner: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Webster: AmGen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Luger: Syros: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Brystol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Litzow: AbbVie: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax, a BCL-2 inihibitor, is not FDA-approved for use in ALL.

Abstract Central nervous system (CNS) involvement in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is rare, and systematic data regarding outcome are scarce. This retrospective study summarized data from 11 consecutive Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) clinical trials for patients with newly diagnosed AML. In all, 3240 patients with AML were analyzed, and 36 (1.11%) were found to have CNS involvement at diagnosis. The incidence of CNS disease among the 5 studies with per protocol mandatory lumbar puncture (LP) was similar to the incidence among studies in which LP was performed at the discretion of the investigator (0.86% vs 1.41%; P = .18). There was no significant difference in the rate of complete remission (CR) among patients with CNS involvement and those with other extramedullary disease (EMD) sites or those with no EMD (52.8% vs 59.3%-60%). The median overall survival (OS) for patients who were CNS positive, who had other EMD, or who had no EMD was 11.4, 11.3, and 12.7 months, respectively. There was no difference in OS among patients with CNS involvement, those with other EMD (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; adjusted P = .84), and those with no EMD (HR, 1.19; adjusted P = .44). In conclusion, the reported incidence of CNS involvement in patients with newly diagnosed AML is low (1.1%), irrespective of whether an LP is mandatory or not. The presence of CNS disease at diagnosis in and of itself does not seem to portend a poor prognosis for achieving an initial CR or for OS.