Flumatinib versus Imatinib for Newly Diagnosed Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: A Phase III, Randomized, Open-label, Multi-center FESTnd Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Zhang ◽  
Li Meng ◽  
Bingcheng Liu ◽  
Yanli Zhang ◽  
Huanling Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Open Label

EPIC: A phase III randomized, open-label study of ponatinib versus imatinib in adult patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS7129-TPS7129
Author(s):  
Jeffrey H. Lipton ◽  
Michael W. N. Deininger ◽  
Stephanie Lustgarten ◽  
Christopher D. Turner ◽  
Victor M. Rivera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Dropout Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Absolute Increase ◽  
Once Daily

TPS7129 Background: The hallmark genetic abnormality of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), known as the Philadelphia chromosome, generates the BCR-ABL fusion gene; expression of BCR-ABL in hematopoietic stem cells gives rise to CML. Ponatinib is a potent oral pan–BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that is active against native and mutated forms of BCR-ABL, including the T315I gatekeeper mutant. Results from the phase 1 and phase 2 studies of ponatinib demonstrated that ponatinib is generally well tolerated and has substantial anti-leukemic activity in patients with CML who are resistant or intolerant to prior TKI therapy, regardless of baseline mutation status. In addition, multivariate analyses suggest that ponatinib has greater activity in younger patients who are less heavily pretreated and have a shorter time since diagnosis. The phase 3 EPIC (Evaluation of Ponatinib vs Imatinib in CML) study is testing the hypothesis that ponatinib is an effective treatment for newly diagnosed chronic phase (CP) CML patients when compared with standard imatinib therapy. Methods: EPIC is a multicenter, international, phase 3, two-arm, open-label trial of ponatinib (45 mg once daily) versus imatinib (400 mg once daily) in patients with newly diagnosed CP-CML. Patients ≥18 years of age with CP-CML (diagnosed within 6 months prior to study entry) and adequate renal, hepatic, and pancreatic function are eligible for enrollment. Enrolled patients are assigned to receive ponatinib or imatinib in a 1:1 fashion, stratified by Sokal Risk score (low vs intermediate vs high). The primary efficacy endpoint for this trial is major molecular response (MMR) rate at 12 months. Secondary endpoints include MMR rate at 5 years, BCR-ABLIS<10% rate at 3 months, CCyR rate at 12 months, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. A sample size consisting of 480 patients will provide 90% power to detect a 15% absolute increase in MMR rate at 12 months using an unstratified Fisher exact 2-sided test at an alpha level of 0.05. Assuming a 10% dropout rate, approximately 528 patients will be enrolled. The first patient was enrolled in August 2012. Clinical trial information: NCT01650805.

Frontline flumatinib versus imatinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: Results from the China randomized phase III study.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7004-7004
Author(s):  
Zhang Li ◽  
Li Meng ◽  
Yanli Zhang ◽  
Huanling Zhu ◽  
Jiuwei Cui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Frontline Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii Study

7004 Background: Flumatinib (FM), a derivative of imatinib (IM), is a novel BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). The aim of this open-label phase III study was to validate the efficacy and safety of FM in comparison with IM as frontline treatment in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase (CML-CP). Methods: Randomization was stratified by Sokal score with a 1:1 allocation to each arm. Primary endpoints were major molecular response (MMR = BCR-ABL IS≤0.1%) rates at 6 and 12 months. Molecular responses were assessed at a central laboratory blinded to treatment allocations during the study. Efficacy endpoints were analyzed for the intention-to-treat populations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02204644. Results: 400 eligible patients were randomized and patient characteristics at baseline were similar in each arm. The full analysis set (FAS) consisted of 393 patients who received FM 600 mg (n = 196) or IM 400 mg (n = 197) tablets once daily. Compared with IM, FM resulted significantly higher induction of MMR rate (%; 95%CI) at 6 month (33.7; 27.06-40.29 vs 18.3; 12.88-23.67; P = 0.0005) and 12 month (48.5; 41.47-55.47 vs 33.0; 26.43-39.56; P = 0.0021) and also at 3 month (8.2; 4.33- 12.00 vs 2.0; 0.06-4.00; P = 0.0058). Significantly more patients in the FM than in the IM arm achieved a complete molecular response (BCR-ABL IS≤0.0032%) at 12 months. Early molecular response (BCR-ABL IS ≤ 10%) at 3 months and early CCyR at 6 months were also significantly higher with FM than IM (82.1; 76.78-87.50 vs 53.3; 46.33-60.27; P < 0.0001 and 60.71; 53.88-67.55 vs 49.75, 42.76, 56.73; P = 0.0332). FM has a safety profile similar to IM. The rates of grade 3/4 TEAEs of FM were similar to IM, 56.57% (112 of 198) vs 41.38% (87 of 196). However, the frequencies of some nonhematological and hematological adverse events were significantly lower in the FM than in the IM arm, such as rash (4.59% vs 12.63%, P = 0.0064) and eyelid edema (0.51 vs 14.65, P < 0.0001); leukopenia (30.61 vs 62.63, P < 0.0001) and neutropenia (30.10 vs 59.60, P < 0.0001). No specific TEAE was identified in each arm. Conclusions: This phase III study met its primary endpoints. Our study results suggest that FM is comparable to IM in its safety and superior in its efficacy profile at 3, 6 and 12 month time points. These results support FM as a frontline treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed CML-CP. Clinical trial information: NCT02204644.

scholarly journals Phase III, Randomized, Open-Label Study of Daily Imatinib Mesylate 400 mg Versus 800 mg in Patients With Newly Diagnosed, Previously Untreated Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase Using Molecular End Points: Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Optimization and Selectivity Study

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 424-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge E. Cortes ◽  
Michele Baccarani ◽  
François Guilhot ◽  
Brian J. Druker ◽  
Susan Branford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Imatinib Mesylate ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Gastrointestinal Problems

PurposeTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of initial treatment with imatinib mesylate 800 mg/d (400 mg twice daily) versus 400 mg/d in patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase.Patients and MethodsA total of 476 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to imatinib 800 mg (n = 319) or 400 mg (n = 157) daily. The primary end point was the major molecular response (MMR) rate at 12 months.ResultsAt 12 months, differences in MMR and complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) rates were not statistically significant (MMR, 46% v 40%; P = .2035; CCyR, 70% v 66%; P = .3470). However, MMR occurred faster among patients randomly assigned to imatinib 800 mg/d, who had higher rates of MMR at 3 and 6 months compared with those in the imatinib 400-mg/d arm (P = .0035 by log-rank test). CCyR also occurred faster in the 800-mg/d arm (CCyR at 6 months, 57% v 45%; P = .0146). The most common adverse events were edema, gastrointestinal problems, and rash, and all were more common in patients in the 800-mg/d arm. Grades 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity also occurred more frequently in patients receiving imatinib 800 mg/d.ConclusionMMR rates at 1 year were similar with imatinib 800 mg/d and 400 mg/d, but MMR and CCyR occurred earlier in patients treated with 800 mg/d. Continued follow-up is needed to determine the clinical significance of earlier responses on high-dose imatinib.

scholarly journals Bosutinib Versus Imatinib in Newly Diagnosed Chronic-Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Results From the BELA Trial

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (28) ◽  
pp. 3486-3492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge E. Cortes ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽  
Tim H. Brümmendorf ◽  
Irina Dyagil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Cytogenetic Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Blast Phase ◽  
End Point

Purpose Bosutinib is an oral Src/Abl tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The phase III Bosutinib Efficacy and Safety in Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (BELA) trial compared bosutinib with imatinib in newly diagnosed, chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Patients and Methods A total of 502 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to bosutinib 500 mg per day or imatinib 400 mg per day. Results The complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) rate at 12 months was not different for bosutinib (70%; 95% CI, 64% to 76%) versus imatinib (68%; 95% CI, 62% to 74%; two-sided P = .601); therefore, the study did not achieve its primary end point. The major molecular response (MMR) rate at 12 months was higher with bosutinib (41%; 95% CI, 35% to 47%) compared with imatinib (27%; 95% CI, 22% to 33%; two-sided P < .001). Time to CCyR and MMR was faster with bosutinib compared with imatinib (two-sided P < .001 for both). On-treatment transformation to accelerated/blast phase occurred in four patients (2%) on bosutinib compared with 10 patients (4%) on imatinib. A total of three CML-related deaths occurred on the bosutinib arm compared with eight on the imatinib arm. The safety profiles of bosutinib and imatinib were distinct; GI and liver-related events were more frequent with bosutinib, whereas neutropenia, musculoskeletal disorders, and edema were more frequent with imatinib. Conclusion This ongoing trial did not meet its primary end point of CCyR at 12 months, despite the observed higher MMR rate at 12 months, faster times to CCyR and MMR, fewer on-treatment transformations to accelerated/blast phase, and fewer CML-related deaths with bosutinib compared with imatinib. Each drug had a distinct safety profile.

scholarly journals Long-term outcomes with frontline nilotinib versus imatinib in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: ENESTnd 10-year analysis

Leukemia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽  
Timothy P. Hughes ◽  
Richard A. Larson ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
Surapol Issaragrisil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Individual Treatment ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Treatment Free Remission

AbstractIn the ENESTnd study, with ≥10 years follow-up in patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase, nilotinib demonstrated higher cumulative molecular response rates, lower rates of disease progression and CML-related death, and increased eligibility for treatment-free remission (TFR). Cumulative 10-year rates of MMR and MR4.5 were higher with nilotinib (300 mg twice daily [BID], 77.7% and 61.0%, respectively; 400 mg BID, 79.7% and 61.2%, respectively) than with imatinib (400 mg once daily [QD], 62.5% and 39.2%, respectively). Cumulative rates of TFR eligibility at 10 years were higher with nilotinib (300 mg BID, 48.6%; 400 mg BID, 47.3%) vs imatinib (29.7%). Estimated 10-year overall survival rates in nilotinib and imatinib arms were 87.6%, 90.3%, and 88.3%, respectively. Overall frequency of adverse events was similar with nilotinib and imatinib. By 10 years, higher cumulative rates of cardiovascular events were reported with nilotinib (300 mg BID, 16.5%; 400 mg BID, 23.5%) vs imatinib (3.6%), including in Framingham low-risk patients. Overall efficacy and safety results support the use of nilotinib 300 mg BID as frontline therapy for optimal long-term outcomes, especially in patients aiming for TFR. The benefit-risk profile in context of individual treatment goals should be carefully assessed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document