Citations

Introduction: Based on a donor versus no-donor analysis, UKALLXII/E2993 showed a survival benefit for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) in first complete remission (CR1) compared to consolidation/maintenance chemotherapy alone. The follow-up phase 3 E1910 trial (NCT02003222) randomized BCR::ABL1-negative B-lineage ALL patients (pts) aged 30-70 years in measurable residual disease (MRD)-negative CR1 after intensification to conventional chemotherapy (CC) +/- blinatumomab (blin) and demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (OS) with blin (Litzow, NEJM 2024). The current exploratory subgroup analysis evaluates outcomes of MRD-negative pts randomized on E1910 who underwent alloHCT on trial. Methods: Among pts enrolled on E1910, pts in MRD-negative CR1 by 6-color flow cytometry after intensification who were randomized to CC +/- blin and subsequently underwent alloHCT were identified. We compared baseline characteristics, MRD status post induction, relapse-free survival (RFS) and OS using the Kaplan-Meier method and the two-sided log-rank test and Cox model. A multivariable analysis was performed with alloHCT included as a time-varying covariate as well as a landmark analysis comparing the outcome of pts with unfavorable risk on the CC + blin arm who underwent alloHCT versus those who did not. Results: Of 224 MRD-negative randomized pts, 44 underwent alloHCT on trial: 22 in each arm. The median time from randomization to transplant was 3.2 months (mos). The median follow-up from initial registration was 57.8 mos. Baseline demographics including age (median 55 years), gender (53% male), race (89% white) and ethnicity (89% non-Hispanic/Latino) were equally distributed. Compared to CC + blin, the median peripheral blood white cell (WBC) count and blast percentage at diagnosis were higher in the CC arm at 6,640 vs 3,740/uL and 55 vs 9%, respectively, while median marrow blast percentage and overall unfavorable risk as defined in E1910 (55% vs 64%) were similar. Of the 44 MRD-negative pts who proceeded to alloHCT on study, 77% in the CC arm and 64% in the CC+ blin arm were MRD-negative after induction. Myeloablative conditioning was given to the majority of pts (68% CC arm and 73% CC+blin arm) and the most common graft versus host disease prophylaxis was tacrolimus-based on both arms. Among the 44 pts who underwent alloHCT, the observed hazard ratio (HR) comparing relative risk of death between pts randomized to CC+blin or CC only was 0.59 (95% CI: 0.12-2.11) with a 3-year OS rate of 82% versus 71% and the HR comparing relative risk of relapse/death was 0.52 (CI: 0.15-1.79) with a 3-year RFS rate of 82% versus 67%. For patients with unfavorable risk, 3-year OS and 3-year RFS in each treatment arm were both 71% versus 65%. Among 50 pts with unfavorable risk in MRD-negative CR after intensification who were randomized to CC + blin, a landmark analysis performed at 5 mos post randomization showed 3-year OS and RFS rates of 71% versus 90% and 71% versus 86% between the 14 pts who underwent alloHCT and those who did not, respectively. Receipt of alloHCT was a time-varying covariate in a multivariable analysis with gender, WBC count, platelets, hemoglobin, peripheral blood blasts, bone marrow blasts, performance status, and combined molecular risk category. Age, CD20 status, rituximab use, and intention to receive alloHCT were used as stratification factors. In the entire cohort of MRD-negative pts who were randomized, there was a significant association between improved OS and the receipt of CC+blin vs CC alone (HR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.26 - 0.82; p=0.009), better performance status of 0-1 vs ≥2 and favorable vs unfavorable risk ALL. In contrast, the receipt of alloHCT had no significant effect on OS (HR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.49 - 2.01). Conclusions: Within the constraints of small numbers, this exploratory subgroup analysis demonstrates that in pts with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1-negative B-ALL treated on E1910 who achieved MRD-negativity after intensification, alloHCT outcomes did not appear to be different with or without blin in consolidation. In a multivariate analysis of all MRD-negative pts, receipt of blin but not alloHCT was associated with improved OS. Further investigation is warranted to characterize the relative benefit of blinatumomab in pts receiving alloHCT in frontline consolidation.

Background: Randomized studies in newly diagnosed (ND) AML patients with a FLT3 mutation show that adding 14 days of a FLT3 inhibitor to each intensive chemotherapy cycle improves overall survival. For patients unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy due to older age or comorbidities, the presence of a FLT3-ITD mutation is associated with high rates of early relapse and short remission duration. There is a limited survival benefit of venetoclax (ven) plus azacitidine (aza) compared to aza alone among patients with AML with a FLT3-ITD mutation. Accordingly, there is significant interest in adding FLT3-targeted therapy to lower intensity chemotherapy for patients with ND AML and FLT3 mutations, but to date no randomized data have demonstrated a survival benefit for this approach.Gilteritinib (gilt) is a highly potent and FLT3-selective oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor that is the standard therapy of relapsed/refractory FLT3-mutated AML, based upon superior survival in randomized studies. Gilt can also be combined safely with ven and/or aza, though myelosuppression remains a concern. Despite this, single institution studies of ven, aza, and gilt therapy of ND AML patients with FLT3-mutations show that this three-drug regimen is associated with near-universal complete remission rates (CR 90%, CRi 6%) and a majority of studied patients eliminate detectable FLT3-ITD (<1 x10-5) within four cycles by an ultrasensitive, amplicon-based NGS assay (Short, et al. JCO 2024). Rates of CR with full count recovery and survival appear superior to historical comparisons, but myelosuppression is potentially increased with the triplet regimen. These data demonstrate a need for multi-institutional comparative trials, not only to determine whether adding FLT3-inhibitors to ven and aza improve deep remission rates, but also to refine schedules of the triplet combination that improve tolerability for widespread use.Methods: This tier 1 MyeloMATCH substudy is an open-label, randomized phase 2 trial that will enroll ND AML patients older than age 60 or individuals judged by their treating physician to be best served by azanucleoside + ven-based therapy due to comorbidity. Subjects provide samples to the central MyeloMATCH Master Screening and Reassessment Protocol (MSRP, NCT05564390 ) and are assigned to the MM1OA-EA02 substudy (NCT06317649) based upon the presence of a FLT3-ITD or FLT3-TKD (D835) mutation by NGS. Subjects are randomized to one of three arms (regimens 1, 2, or 3), stratified by age (<70 years vs. older) and FLT3-ITD burden (ITD VAF>33% vs. lower VAF or D835). All study arms contain aza and ven administered in 28-day cycles with two study arms also including gilt. Regimen 1 is ven and aza administered as per the pivotal VIALE-A study. Regimen 2 adds gilt 80 mg once daily on days 1-28 and regimen 3 adds gilt on days 8-21 only. A marrow biopsy is performed during the first cycle (day 14-21, depending on study arm) and all chemotherapy is held until count recovery if a morphologic leukemia-free state or aplasia is seen. Patients receive up to two induction cycles to achieve remission and then receive ongoing consolidation cycles of therapy with a similar pattern of gilt administration up to 2 years. To minimize risk of cumulative myelosuppression, during consolidation azacitidine administration is reduced to days 1-5 on regimens 2 and 3 and ven limited to days 1-7 on regimen 2 and days 1-14 on regimen 3. For all arms, treatment-related adverse events prompt further reduction in ven, aza, or gilt dose or duration. Response will be measured after cycles 2 and 4, including centrally-performed MRD by flow cytometry. The primary endpoint is the rate of MRD(-) CR (<1 x 10-3) after up to 4 cycles. Key secondary endpoints include safety data, response rate, EFS, and OS. The study is powered to detect a 25% absolute improvement in MRD(-) CR rate in either triplet arm from a target accrual of 147 patients. A safety run-in for regimens 2 and 3 to confirm tolerability and feasibility will be performed after 20 subjects enroll to these arms; an interim futility analysis will be performed once response assessment of 50% of all planned accrual occurs. Study was activated on June 6, 2024 and is expected to continue until December 2025.

Background: The addition of midostaurin (M), an oral multi-kinase inhibitor, to intensive chemotherapy (IC) prolongs survival in newly diagnosed (ND) FLT3 mutated (m) AML. It is not known if there is a benefit to more potent and selective FLT3 inhibitors. Among these is Gilteritinib (G), now approved as a single agent in relapsed/refractory FLT3m AML. Combined with IC, G also leads to high measurable residual disease (MRD)negative (-) composite complete remission (CRc) in FLT3 Internal Tandem Duplication (ITD)m AML. The aim of the PrECOG 0905 study was to compare FLT3m clearance and CRc rates of G vs M with IC in adults with ND FLT3m AML. Methods: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial comparing G to M in combination with IC during induction and consolidation in ND AML pts with centrally PCR detected FLT3 ITD or TKD mutations. Pts age 18-70 with non M3 AML and no known core binding factor rearrangement were eligible. Pts were stratified by mutation type (TKD only vs. ITD (+/- TKD)), NPM1 mutation status, and FLT3-ITD allelic ratio. Induction consisted of cytarabine 100 mg/m2 by continuous infusion daily, on day (d) 1-7 and daunorubicin 90 mg/m2 IV on d 1-3. G 120 mg daily or M 50 mg twice daily was given orally on d8-21. Consolidation (up to 4 cycles) began within 60 d of induction with Cytarabine (1.5-3 g/m2 IV) X 6 doses and G or M (as per randomization) on d8-21. Pts could proceed to transplant (HCT) at any time. Maintenance was not included. The primary outcome was FLT3m MRD (-) CRc after induction. MRD for TKD mutations was tested by PCR (sensitivity 10-2); ITD MRD was tested by amplicon-based NGS (sensitivity 10-4). Safety and efficacy were analyzed in all eligible pts who received treatment. Secondary endpoints included comparison of CRc, MRD by flow cytometry (sensitivity 10-3), and survival. Results: From 11/2019 to 11/2022, 722 pts were screened at 37 centers, 180 pts randomized, and 177 pts (58% female, 77% white, 8.5% black, 8.5% hispanic) treated on the G (n=90) or M (n=87) arm. Median age was 54, with 27.7% > age 60. FLT3-ITD was present in 80% in the G arm and 78.2% in the M arm. Of those with FLT3-ITD, NPM1 was detected in 56.9% pts in G arm and 58.8% in M arm. 24.4% G and 20.7% M pts had co-occuring FLT3-ITD, NPM1 and DNMT3A mutations. Adverse karyotype was seen in 3.4% G and 9.3% M while 10% G and 13.8% M were ELN 2022 adverse risk. For pts on G arm, 85.6% achieved CRc compared to 72.4% for M (p=0.042). 5 (5.6%) pts on G arm and 6 (6.9%) on M arm received 2 cycles in induction. Post induction, the FLT3m- CRc rate was 40% for G vs 47.1% for M (p=0.366). FLT3-TKD only mutated pts achieved CRc in 88.9 % with G and 63.2% with M and FLT3m- CRc in 72.2% and 63.2% respectively. FLT3-ITDm (+/- TKDm) pts achieved CRc/FLT3m- CRc in 84.7%/31.9% with G and 75%/42.6% with M, respectively. In pts with FLT3-ITD, NPM1 and DNMT3A mutations, 95.5% G and 72.2% M achieved CRc and 50% G vs 33.3% on M achieved FLT3m- CRc. Flow cytometry MRD negative CRc was documented in 64.4% on G arm and 59.8% on M arm after induction (p=0.539). On G arm 67 (74%) patients received at least one cycle of consolidation compared to 53 (61%) pts on M arm. On exploratory analysis, 54 (66%) G and 40 (46%) M were reported to proceed to HCT in first remission. FLT3m testing was done post consolidation cycle 1 in 27 pts in FLT3m+ CRc after induction and 15/18 (83%) on G and 4/9 (44.4%) on M converted to FLT3m-. On multivariate logistic regression analysis for FLT3m-CRc post-induction, FLT3-ITD allelic ratio, NPM1m, WBC and hemoglobin at baseline were significant at the 0.10 two-sided level, while treatment arm, and 2017 ELN risk were not. There were no deaths from treatment-related (TR) adverse events (TRAEs) while grade >=3 TRAE was reported in 73%G vs 70% M during induction and 79%G vs 73%M pts during consolidation. Conclusion: Induction therapy with daunorubicin 90 mg/m2 X 3 days, cytarabine 100 mg/m2 and gilteritinib results in an excellent CRc rate with no TR deaths in pts with ND FLT3m AML up to age 70. Compared to M, G increased the CRc but not the FLT3m- CRc rate after induction. More post induction FLT3m+CRc pts who received G became FLT3m- after consolidation cycle 1 and more G pts succeeded in proceeding to HCT. Future survival data will help evaluate the clinical impact of G and MRD assessments in ND FLT3mAML. Larger studies will be needed to establish most predictive timing of MRD and for definitive comparisons of these drugs in patients with specific mutation profiles ( ie TKD, ITD/NPM1/DNMT3).

Introduction: ECOG ACRIN E1910 is a randomized phase III trial that showed that adults with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who become MRD negative (<0.01%) after induction chemo who receive blinatumomab with conventional chemotherapy (chemo) have improved survival compared with those who received chemo only (Litzow et al, Blood (2022) 140: Supplement 2, LBA-1). However, not all pts were able to receive all four planned cycles of blinatumomab in consolidation. In this report we assessed outcomes of pts in the blinatumomab arm of the trial who received all 4 cycles of blinatumomab compared to those who received 1-2 cycles. Methods: Patient between the ages of 30 and 70 with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative B-lineage ALL were enrolled and initially received 2.5 months of combination induction chemo utilizing a BFM-like regimen adapted from the E2993/UKALLXII clinical trial, with pegaspargase (after induction only for patients >=55 years of age) and addition of rituximab for CD20 positive patients. After remission induction (step 1) pts in morphologic complete remission (CR/CRi) received an intensification course of high dose methotrexate with pegaspargase for CNS prophylaxis (step 2). At the conclusion of step 2, remission and MRD status were determined centrally by 6-color flow cytometry with MRD negativity defined as <0.01%. In the primary analysis subset, MRD negative patients were randomized to receive an additional 4cycles of consolidation chemo or 2 cycles of blinatumomab at 28 mcg/day (flat dose) for 28 days each cycle followed by 3 cycles of consolidation chemo, another 4-week cycle of blinatumomab (3rd cycle of blinatumomab) followed by an additional cycle of chemo and then a 4th cycle of blinatumomab (step 3). Following completion of consolidation chemo +/- blinatumomab, pts were given 2.5 years of POMP maintenance therapy timed from the start of the intensification cycle (step 4). Estimates of OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of OS between treatment arms were conducted using the stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional-hazards model with age, CD20 status, rituximab use, and whether pts intend to receive HSCT or not as stratification factors. As the number of cycles needed to optimize outcome has not been studied, an unplanned landmark analysis was used to compare OS of pts in the blinatumomab arm who received all 4 cycles o those who received 1-2 cycles. Time 0 was chosen as 9 months post step 3 randomization (the time that patients were supposed to complete 4 cycles of blina). Four pts who received blinatumomab but died within 9 months post step 3 randomization were therefore excluded from this analysis. Results: The study was activated on December 17, 2013 and closed to enrollment on October 15, 2019. 772 pts were screened for the trial and 488 were enrolled on step 1 induction therapy. The median age of the pts was 51 years (range 30-70). 224 MRD negative pts were randomized, 112 pts to each arm. In the blinatumomab arm 12 pts received 1 cycle (11%), 32 pts received 2 cycles (29%), 4 pts received 3 cycles (4%) and 63 pts received 4 cycles (57%). The OS of pts who received 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab was compared to control (Figure 1) The difference was not significant (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.34, p=0.22). Fig 2 compares the survival of those who received 1-2 cycles to those who received 4 cycles ( (HR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.16, p=0.076). Conclusion: The addition of blinatumomab to consolidation chemotherapy resulted in a significantly better overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone in pts with newly diagnosed B-lineage ALL who were MRD negative after intensification. This represents a new standard of care for pts aged 30-70 years with BCR::ABL1 negative ALL. The optimal dose and number of cycles is however unknown. In this unplanned subgroup analysis we demonstrate that a survival benefit can only be confirmed in patients who receive the intended 4 cycles of blinatumomab during consolidation. Further studies will be needed to determine if fewer cycles can provide a similar benefit.

Background There is limited prospective or comparative data evaluating the HRQoL impact of intensive chemotherapy (IC) in older adults (age ≥60 years) with AML. In the recent EA E2906 phase 3 study of '7&3' (daunorubicin & cytarabine) vs. clofarabine (CLO), a putative lower intensity therapy, we incorporated a prospective patient-reported outcomes (PRO) assessment of HRQoL and fatigue to understand treatment impact from the patients' (pts) perspective. Methods E2906 study design and results have been presented previously [n=727, med. age 68 years (range 60-86), randomized 1:1 to ‘standard’ ‘7&3‘ & high dose cytarabine (Arm A) vs. single agent CLO (Arm B), as remission induction (Step 1) and consolidation (Step 2), respectively]. There was no difference in composite complete remission (CCR, 50%) or 30-day mortality rates (8.5%), and in primary analysis CLO was inferior for Overall Survival. HRQoL was a key secondary protocol endpoint. PROs assessed HRQoL and leukemia-specific symptoms and concerns using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia scale (FACT-Leu), & Fatigue using FACT-Fatigue subscale. PROs were administered at prespecified time points: (1) Baseline; (2) Cycle 1 at nadir (approx. Day 15); (3) End of Step 1 restaging (approx. D 40); (4) Beginning of Step 2 (1 st consolidation, approx. D 45); and (5) 2 nd cycle consolidation/End Step 2 (approx. D 60). The FACT-Leu Trial Outcome Index ( TOI) was calculated by summing physical well-being, functional well-being, and leukemia-specific concerns subscales to create a single composite score. Higher TOI scores correspond to better HRQoL. The primary endpoint was to evaluate TOI difference from randomization to day 30 after induction therapy between arms, evaluated using Wilcoxon rank sum test. We also compared Clinically Meaningful differences (CMiD) in TOI (defined as patient change ≥½ standard deviation from baseline TOI) between arms, using the X2 test. Pts not completing at least 2 assessment forms (including baseline) were excluded. Testing of constructs of Physical Well-being (PWB), Functional, Leukemia & Fatigue scales demonstrated high Cronbach's a values (a >0.7) except for PWB (a=0.672) at a single time point (End of Step 2). Results Baseline TOI was available for n=489, and 364 pts (n=182 each Arm) were evaluable in this planned analysis. Evaluating CMiD during Cycle 1 induction, pts in Arm B were less likely to experience ‘Worse’ TOI score (32% vs. 40.7%, Arm A), more likely to maintain stable TOI scores (49.1% vs. 39%, Arm A), and had a similar proportion of ‘Better’ TOI scores (20.3%, A vs. 18.9%, B) although differences were not significant (p=0.1389). Conversely in cycle 1 consolidation, more patients in Arm A experienced Better TOI (45.1% vs. 29.2%, Arm B), fewer had stable TOI (45.1% vs. 58.3%, Arm B), and rates of ‘Worse’ TOI were similar (9.8%, A vs 12.5%, Arm B), again differences were not significant (p=0.2616). There was no difference in Fatigue scores between Arms (p=0.49). We evaluated whether TOI and Fatigue scores could predict the ability to complete protocol therapy. In univariate analysis baseline TOI (p=0.0059) and Fatigue (p=0.0057) were associated with Step 1 completion, however on multivariate analysis (adjusting for age, sex, and Arm) were no longer significant [TOI, Odds Ratio (OR) 1.03 (0.98-1.08, p=0.27); Fatigue, OR 1.03 (0.96-1.11, p=0.42)]. There was a borderline association of TOI with Step 2 completion [TOI OR 1.10 (1.00-1.23, p=0.06)]. Using a multivariable linear mixed effects model, we observed similar and significant changes in TOI scores in both Arms, demonstrating the effect of IC & CLO on HRQoL (Figure). Comparing to baseline, TOI scores decreased significantly at C1 induction nadir (-4.0873, p<0.0001), and increased by 5.0762 (p=0.0004) at end Step 1, by 6.9047 at cycle 1 consolidation (p<0.0001), and by 11.4601 (p<0.0001) at end Step 2. Differences were mainly apparent in those who achieved CCR, and there was significant attrition in PRO responses in non-CCR pts. Conclusions Older adults experienced significant improvement in HRQoL after nadir regardless of therapy, and those achieving CCR report significantly higher scores. We did not observe differences in leukemia specific HRQoL or fatigue between treatment Arms (7&3 vs. CLO). Patient-reported HRQoL & Fatigue was not predictive of completion of protocol therapy. These results serve as a benchmark for expectations with IC in older adults.

AbstractSomatic mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) genes occur frequently in adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and less commonly in pediatric AML. The objective of this study was to describe the prevalence, mutational profile, and prognostic significance of IDH mutations in AML across age. Our cohort included 3141 patients aged between <1 month and 88 years treated on Children’s Cancer Group/Children’s Oncology Group (n = 1872), Southwest Oncology Group (n = 359), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (n = 397) trials, and in Beat AML (n = 333) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (n = 180) genomic characterization cohorts. We retrospectively analyzed patients in 4 age groups (age range, n): pediatric (0-17, 1744), adolescent/young adult (18-39, 444), intermediate-age (40-59, 640), older (≥60, 309). IDH mutations (IDHmut) were identified in 9.2% of the total cohort (n = 288; IDH1 [n = 123, 42.7%]; IDH2 [n = 165, 57.3%]) and were strongly correlated with increased age: 3.4% pediatric vs 21% older, P < .001. Outcomes were similar in IDHmut and IDH-wildtype (IDHWT) AML (event-free survival [EFS]: 35.6% vs 40.0%, P = .368; overall survival [OS]: 50.3% vs 55.4%, P = .196). IDH mutations frequently occurred with NPM1 (47.2%), DNMT3A (29.3%), and FLT3-internal tandem duplication (ITD) (22.4%) mutations. Patients with IDHmut AML with NPM1 mutation (IDHmut/NPM1mut) had significantly improved survival compared with the poor outcomes experienced by patients without (IDHmut/NPM1WT) (EFS: 55.1% vs 17.0%, P < .001; OS: 66.5% vs 35.2%, P < .001). DNTM3A or FLT3-ITD mutations in otherwise favorable IDHmut/NPM1mut AML led to inferior outcomes. Age group analysis demonstrated that IDH mutations did not abrogate the favorable prognostic impact of NPM1mut in patients aged <60 years; older patients had poor outcomes regardless of NPM1 status. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00070174, #NCT00372593, #NCT01371981, #NCT00049517, and #NCT00085709.

AbstractBackgroundObesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m2) is an important epidemiological risk factor for developing acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Therefore, the authors studied the association of obesity with clinical and genetic phenotype and its impact on outcome in adults with AML.MethodsThe authors analyzed BMI in 1088 adults who were receiving intensive remission induction and consolidation therapy in two prospective, randomized therapeutic clinical trials of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group‐American College of Radiology Imaging Network: E1900 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00049517; patients younger than 60 years) and E3999 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00046930; patients aged 60 years or older).ResultsObesity was prevalent at diagnosis (33%) and, compared with nonobesity, was associated with intermediate‐risk cytogenetics group (p = .008), poorer performance status (p = .01), and a trend toward older age (p = .06). Obesity was not associated with somatic mutations among a selected 18‐gene panel that was tested in a subset of younger patients. Obesity was not associated with clinical outcome (including complete remission, early death, or overall survival), and the authors did not identify any patient subgroup that had inferior outcomes based on BMI. Obese patients were significantly more likely to receive <90% of the intended daunorubicin dose despite protocol specification, particularly in the E1900 high‐dose (90 mg/m2) daunorubicin arm (p = .002); however, this did not correlate with inferior overall survival on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.90–2.13; p = .14).ConclusionsObesity is associated with unique clinical and disease‐related phenotypic features in AML and may influence physician treatment decisions regarding daunorubicin dosing. However, the current study demonstrates that obesity is not a factor in survival, and strict adherence to body surface area‐based dosing is not necessary because dose adjustments do not affect outcomes.