scholarly journals Deep Molecular Response in Imatinib First-Line 418 Newly Diagnosed CP CML Patients.

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3014-3014
Author(s):  
Franck Emmanuel Nicolini ◽  
Vincent Alcazer ◽  
Pascale Cony-Makhoul ◽  
Stephanie Dulucq ◽  
Sandrine Hayette ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Deep Molecular Response ◽  
Chi2 Test

Abstract Introduction Deep molecular response (DMR) are now highly desirable goals in the treatment of CP-CML, especially in the front-line setting, because it can lead to a definitive treatment-free remission (TFR). However, such a goal is difficult to attain and does not concern the majority of patients (pts), but currently the precise number of pts able to access to TFR is unknown. Aims We aim to determine the number or newly diagnosed CP-CML pts reaching DMR, stable DMR, and access to TFR, on Imatinib (IM, Glivec®) first-line. Methods We retrospectively analyzed in an observational study, a cohort of newly diagnosed CP-CML pts treated with IM first-line 400 mg daily alone in our 3 reference centers between 2000→2018. All pts were followed according to the ELN recommendations 2006, 2010 and 2013. Clinical data were extracted from medical files, and responses (hematologic, cytogenetic, molecular) were analysed according to standard methods. Molecular results were standardised according to the ELN/Eutos programs since 2003, and were all expressed as BCR-ABLIS in %. DMR have been defined according to the ELN (NCP. Cross et al., Leukemia 2015). Stability of DMR has been defined as a stable if ≥2 years at least on 4 datapoints. TFR has been proposed to pts presenting the only current recommended criteria: MR4.5 ≥2 years at least on 4 datapoints [(Rea et al., Cancer 2018)], in the 3 centers involved, within clinical trials, pioneered in our country, or now as a clinical routine recommendation. Loss of MMR was the trigger for TKI resumption after IM cessation for TFR. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), failure-free survival (FFS, defined as progression to advanced phases death, loss of CHR, CCyR, or MMR, discontinuation of IM for toxicity, primary cytogenetic resistance) were analysed since IM initiation in intention-to-treat. Results Four hundred and eighteen pts have been included in this study, with a median age of 60.7 (48-70) years at diagnosis, with 57% males and 43% females. Sokal score (n=401) was low in 32%, intermediate in 51% and high in 17%. ACA were present at diagnosis in 5.5% of the pts (NA in 1.44%). Major BCR transcripts were found in 98% of pts, and atypical transcripts in 1.9%. CHR was reached in a median of 1 (0.85 to 1.64) month of IM, <10% BCR-ABL transcript (IS) level at 3 months was found in 81% of the pts, and only 9.5% of pts were in MMR at 3 months. The median follow-up after IM initiation is 77.4 (0.9-231.5) months, 125 (30%) pts have switched to TKI2 for IM resistance or intolerance. Overall, 252 (60%) pts reached MR4, 127 (30%) stable MR4, 170 (41%) MR4.5, and 82 (20%) stable MR4.5. The median time on TKI necessary for obtaining stable MR4.5 is 15.6 (5.9-28) months. The cumulative incidence of MR4.5 at 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 84, 96, 108 and 120 months were 12.5%, 23.4%, 31.6%, 36.72%, 43.55%, 48.7%, 48.3%, 52.98%, 54.03%, 59.18% respectively (Figure 1A.). The cumulative incidence of stable MR4.5 at 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 84, 96, 108 and 120 months were 5.76%, 11.5%, 17.83%, 21.82%, 26.35%, 28.13%, 28.13%, 29.13%, 29.13%, 29.13% respectively (See figure 1B.). Seventeen (13%) and 10 (12%) pts have switched IM→TKI2 before obtaining a stable MR4 and a stable MR4.5 respectively. Overall, 41 (10%) pts have reached the TFR criteria and stopped their TKI and 23 (56%) never lost their MMR after cessation, with a median follow-up of 41.7 (9.4-121.8) months. In an univariate analysis, only gender (female vs male, 39% vs 61% for no MR4.5 and 53.66% vs 46.34% for stable MR4.5, p=0.028, Pearson's CHI2 test), and MMR at 3 months (yes vs no, 3.74% vs 96.26% for no MR4.5 and 17.46% vs 82.54% for stable MR4.5, p<0.001, Pearson's CHI2 test) were identified variables impacting on stable MR4.5. A multivariate analysis could not be performed on so few discriminant factors identified in the univariate analysis. Conclusions Only 42 out 418 (10%) of the newly diagnosed CP-CML pts on IM first-line in our study reach the TFR criteria we recommended, and only 22 over 418 pts (5%)will finally definitively stop any TKI durably within the limits of this retrospective observational study. Urgent strategies in order to increase the access to definitive TFR are needed. Disclosures Nicolini: Sun Pharma Ltd: Consultancy; Incyte Biosciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Cony-Makhoul:BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Other: Travels for attending to Congress; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Writing support, Travels for attending to Congress. Dulucq:BMS: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Hayette:Incyte: Consultancy. Mahon:BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Etienne:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Speakers Bureau.

ENESTnd Update: Continued Superiority of Nilotinib Versus Imatinib In Patients with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia In Chronic Phase (CML-CP)

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 207-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy P. Hughes ◽  
Andreas Hochhaus ◽  
Giuseppe Saglio ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
Saengsuree Jootar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Clonal Evolution ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Superior Efficacy ◽  
Rate Of Progression

Abstract Abstract 207 Background: Results from the phase 3, international, randomized ENESTnd trial have demonstrated the superior efficacy of nilotinib over imatinib with significantly higher rates of major molecular response (MMR), complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), and with significantly lower rates of progression to AP/BC on treatment. Here, we present data with a median follow-up of 18 months. Methods: 846 CML-CP patients were randomized to nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (bid) (n=282), nilotinib 400 mg bid (n=281), and imatinib 400 mg once daily (n=283). Primary endpoint was MMR (≤ 0.1% BCR-ABLIS) rate “at” 12 months, as previously presented. Key secondary endpoint was durable MMR at 24 months. Other endpoints assessed at 24 months include progression to AP/BC (with and without clonal evolution), event-free survival, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). Results: With a median follow-up of 18 months, the overall best MMR rate was superior for nilotinib 300 mg bid (66%, P < .0001) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (62%, P < .0001) compared with imatinib (40%). Superior rates of MMR were observed in both nilotinib arms compared with the imatinib arm across all Sokal risk groups (Table). The overall best rate of BCR-ABLIS ≤ 0.0032% (equivalent to complete molecular response, CMR) was superior for nilotinib 300 mg bid (21%, P < .0001) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (17%, P < .0001) compared with imatinib (6%). The overall best CCyR rate was superior for nilotinib 300 mg bid (85%, P < .001) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (82%, P=.017) compared with imatinib (74%). The superior efficacy of nilotinib was further demonstrated using the 2009 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 12-month milestone in which fewer patients had suboptimal response or treatment failure on nilotinib 300 mg bid (2%, 3%) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (2%, 2%) vs imatinib (11%, 8%). Rates of progression to AP/BC on treatment were significantly lower for nilotinib 300 mg bid (0.7%, P=.006) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (0.4%, P=.003) compared with imatinib (4.2%). The rate of progression on treatment was also significantly lower for nilotinib when including clonal evolution as a criteria for progression (Table). There were fewer CML-related deaths on nilotinib 300 mg bid (n=2), and 400 mg bid (n=1) vs imatinib (n=8). Estimated OS rate (including data from follow-up after discontinuation) at 18 months was higher for nilotinib 300 mg bid (98.5%, P=.28) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (99.3%, P=.03) vs imatinib (96.9%). Both drugs were well-tolerated. Discontinuations due to adverse events or laboratory abnormalities were lowest for nilotinib 300 mg bid (7%) compared with nilotinib 400 mg bid (12%) and imatinib (9%). With longer follow up there has been minimal change in the occurrence of AEs. Minimum 24-month follow-up data for all patients will be presented. Conclusions: With longer follow-up, nilotinib was associated with a significantly lower rate of progression to AP/BC on treatment and lower rates of suboptimal response or treatment failure vs imatinib. Nilotinib resulted in fewer CML-related deaths and a higher OS rate vs imatinib. Nilotinib induced superior rates of MMR, CMR, and CCyR vs imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed CML-CP. Taken together, these data support nilotinib as a new standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed CML. Disclosures: Hughes: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria. Hochhaus:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Saglio:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kim:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. le Coutre:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau. Reiffers:Novartis: Research Funding. Pasquini:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Clark:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genzyme: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gallagher:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hoenekopp:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Haque:Novartis: Employment. Larson:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding.

Very Long-Term Follow-up (> 80 months) of Imatinib (IM) First-Line for Chronic Phase (CP) CML Patients

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 2774-2774
Author(s):  
Franck E. Nicolini ◽  
Marie Balsat ◽  
Maud Lekieffre ◽  
Vincent Alcazer ◽  
Hélène Labussière-wallet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Ph Chromosome

Abstract Introduction Imatinib has indeed revolutionized the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) since more than 15 years now, especially in CP. The first patients (pts) in this setting were treated with this compound within the IRIS phase III trial from Novartis, started in January 2000. Regular updates of the results of this study have been presented during various meetings until year 7, and academic studies have recently reported the outcomes of IM first-line CP CML pts after 66 months follow-up. However, little is known about the very long-term outcomes (>8 years) of such first-line pts and these data might be of interest while generic forms of IM will be soon launched in this setting. In this study, we aimed to look at long-term outcomes in terms of efficacy and toxicities in first-line CP CML pts treated with branded form of IM (Glivec®). Methods This is a comprehensive retrospective analysis of first-line CP CML pts treated with IM first-line 400 mg daily since diagnosis and followed in 2 university reference centers for CML between 2000 and 2015, inside or outside academic or industrial clinical trials. All living pts have given their agreement for participation in this retrospective analysis. Pts have been analyzed in intention-to-treat, CML was defined according to ELN criteria [CP, accelerated phase (AP) and blast crises (BC)], Sokal, Euro and EUTOS scores have been calculated as published. Molecular biology tests have been performed according to ELN guidelines and BCR-ABL1/ABL1 were expressed as % on the international scale and 3 ELN conversion factors have been applied successively along time according to material exchanges performed with the central European laboratory in Mannheim. Cytogenetic and molecular responses have been defined according to the ELN criteria. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of IM initiation until death at any time and for any reason; until progression to AP or BC at any time for progression-free survival (PFS); and until death, progression to AP or BC, failure on IM or IM treatment discontinuation for any cause including treatment-free remission (TFR), for event-free survival (EFS). The cut-off date for this analysis was the 20th of July 2,015. Results At time of analysis, 120 pts could be analyzed, with a median follow-up of 85.5 (1-194) months, 70 (58%) were males, with a median age of 55 (11-85) at IM initiation. Sokal score was high for 24(20%) pts, intermediate for 58 (49%), low for 34 (30.5%), unknown in 4 (0.5%) pts. Four (3.5%) pts had a variant Ph chromosome, 7 (6%) with additional chromosomal abnormalities, and 2 a masked Ph chromosome, 6 harbored atypical BCR-ABL1 transcripts excluded from analysis. Early molecular response (M3) was achieved in 86 (72%) pts, unreached in 20 (16%) pts, and unknown for 15 (12.5%) pts. It was predictive of Major Molecular Response (MMR) at 12 months (p=0.01, OR 5.35, 95%CI [1.3-31.94]), for MR4 rates at 24 months (p=0.03, OR 7.35 95%CI [1-328]) and for EFS (p=0.006) but not for OS and PFS in a multivariate Cox model analysis. MMR was achieved in 42% of evaluable pts at 12 months. Eutos, Euro and Sokal scores had no impact on OS, PFS and EFS. Five pts progressed to BC (1 myeloid, 4 lymphoid) within the 5 first years and died after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The PFS rates were 97.5% at 2 years, 92% at 5 years, 88.6% at 10 and 14 years, EFS rates were 76% at 2 years, 60% at 5 years, 45% at 10 years and 21% at 14 years (figure 1), OS rates were 98% at 2 years, 95% at 5 years, 87% at 10 and 14 years. Figure 1: PFS and EFS in pts on IM first-line. (Dashed lines represent 95%CI). MR4.5 was achieved in 58 (48.5%) pts after a median of 46 (3-191) months and TFR strategy (or trial) was proposed in 28 pts (23.5%) and successful in 15 (12.5%) pts. At latest follow-up, after a median of 85.5 (4-180) months, 64 (53.5%) pts are still on IM, and 44 (37%) have switched to an alternative therapy for intolerance (17 pts, 14%) or resistance (16 pts, 13.5%, 7 with a BCR-ABL mutation) to IM and 11 for other causes (pregnancy, secondary tumors…). Overall, at latest follow-up, 10/120 pts died, 5 of CML progression and 5 from other causes. Conclusions After a very long median follow-up of more than 85 months, IM still consistently provides high rates of remission and survival, without disease progression and severe long-term toxicities. In addition, half of the pts reached the MR4.5 level, ≥2 years stable in 23.5% of the pts offering the possibility of a treatment-free strategy. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Nicolini: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Ariad Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mahon:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; ARIAD: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Etienne:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria.

Observational Prospective Registry for the Assessment of the Clinical Impact of Starting Anti-Myeloma Treatment at Biological Relapse

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 4765-4765
Author(s):  
Adrian Alegre ◽  
Merche Gironella ◽  
Juan Miguel Bergua ◽  
Esther Gonzalez ◽  
Fernando Escalante ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Marrow Transplant ◽  
Clinical Relapse ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival

Abstract Introduction: Despite the great medical advances associated with the introduction of thalidomide, bortezomib (BORT), and lenalidomide (LEN) for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), it remains an incurable disease. Most patients (pts) show disease progression, consistent with the clinical evolution of MM, and only a low percentage achieve long-term responses and extended progression-free survival (PFS). The heterogeneous nature of MM in both the clinical and biological setting is reflected in the heterogeneity of MM relapses. The International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel (Rajkumar, Blood 2011) states that treatment (Tx) shall begin either at clinical relapse with symptoms (clinR), or in the event of asymptomatic relapse with significant paraprotein relapse, biological relapse (BR). The purpose of this Spanish registry is to describe MM relapse patterns comparing the impact of Tx decisions in pts who meet the criteria for biological relapse (BR) according to IMWG criteria with those in whom Tx was delayed until clinical relapse (clinR). Here, the preliminary results of this study are presented. Methods: MM pts in (or previous to) first or second BR who have achieved ≥ PR since their last Tx are eligible for inclusion in this observational prospective registry at the time BR is detected. Evaluations performed at least bi-monthly are mandatory. A total of 41 Spanish sites participated in the registry following approval from their independent ethics committees, with 410 pts expected to be included, without physician’s decision of prescribing Tx affecting the inclusion. The main objective of the registry is to assess the time to progression (TTP) from the start of anti-MM Tx at the onset of asymptomatic BR vs. the start of Tx at the time of clinR. Secondary objectives are to describe demographics of BR; to assess the median time elapsing from BR to clinR; to assess overall response rate (ORR), event-free survival (EFS), PFS, overall survival (OS) at BR and at clinR (if appropriate); to asses safety and quality of life (QoL) using 2 validated questionnaires (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY24); to document the tolerability profile of the Tx; and to describe the use of associated resources. Here, we summarize baseline characteristics and preliminary results from 83 pts (out of 126 registered pts) who had basal data in the registry at the time of this report. Results: Overall, 79% of pts presented with a BR and 21% were in a bi-monthly watchful waiting follow up. The mean age of pts was 67 years, 53% were female, 57% were in first relapse, 43% and 27% had an ECOG performance status (PS) of 0 and 1, respectively, while the ECOG PS was unknown in 30% of pts at the time of this report. In total, 30% of pts had ISS stage I, 26% had ISS stage II, and 22% had ISS stage III, while ISS stage data were not available or unknown for 12% and 10% of pts, respectively. MM types were IgG Κ (37% of pts), IgG λ (23%), IgA Κ (13%), IgA λ (9%), and type was unknown in 17% of pts. 28% of IgG/IgA MM types were Bence-Jones. Cytogenetic risk assessments were available in 66% of pts. Among those pts with a BR, 51% received active Tx without waiting for a ClinR. First-line Tx was BORT-based in 70% of pts. Overall, 55% of pts had undergone autologous stem cell transplantation, 15% had received consolidation Tx and 34% had received maintenance Tx. After first-line Tx, 17% of pts achieved a stringent complete response (sCR), 31% achieved a CR, 24% achieved a very good partial response (VGPR), and 10% achieved a PR. The median time to BR was 24.53 months. Most (63%) pts who registered after second relapse received LEN-based Tx. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study in MM to evaluate BR as well as the effects of Tx based on the decision to start Tx at BR vs. clinR. In this preliminary cohort, the physicians’ decision to start active Tx at BR, before the onset of clinR in 50% of cases, was noteworthy. Further follow-up is needed to identify the differences between these two strategies. Updated clinical results will be presented at the meeting. MM-BR Study, Spanish Myeloma Group-GEM/PETHEMA Bibliography Alegre A, et al. Haematologica. 2002;87:609-14. Brioli A, et al. Blood. 2014;123:3414-9. Fernández de Larrea C, et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49:223-7. Lenhoff S, et al. Haematologica. 2006;91:1228-33. Rajkumar SV, et al. Blood. 2011;117:4691-5. Zamarin D, et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48:419-24. Disclosures Alegre: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lahuerta:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ruiz:Celgene: Celgene Stock options as part of the employee's compensation plan Other, Employment. Vilanova:Celgene: Contracted by Celgene Other.

Analysis of Transfusion Dependency Development and Disease Evolution in Patients with MDS with 5q- and without Transfusion Needs at Diagnosis

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3180-3180
Author(s):  
Felix Lopez-Cadenas ◽  
Blanca Xicoy ◽  
Silvia Rojas P ◽  
Kaivers Jennifer ◽  
Ulrich Germing ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Disease Evolution ◽  
Free Survival

Abstract Introduction: Myelodysplastic syndrome with del5q (MDSdel5q) is the only cytogenetically defined MDS category recognized by WHO in 2001, 2008 and 2016 and is defined as a MDS with deletion on the long arm of chromosome 5 and less than 5% of blast cells in bone marrow. It is known that for patients with MDSdel5q and transfusion dependence (TD), Len (LEN) is the first choice of treatment. However, data regarding factors that may impact on the development of TD or disease evolution in patients diagnosed without TD are scanty. In our study a retrospective multicenter analysis on patients with low-int 1 MDSdel5q without TD at diagnosis has been performed in order to answer these questions. Patients and methods: We performed a multicenter collaborative research from the Spanish (RESMD) and German MDS registries. Data from 153 low risk MDSdel5q without TD at diagnosis were retrospectively analyzed. Statistical analysis: Data were summarized using median, range, and percentage. The event of TD was defined as the development of TD according to the IWG criteria (2006) and/or the beginning of a treatment which could modify disease course (LEN or ESA). Transfusion or treatment free survival (TFS), overall survival (OS) and leukemia free survival (LFS) were measured from diagnosis to TD or treatment, the first occurred (or to last follow up if none), last follow up or death from any cause and evolution to AML, respectively. TFS, OS and LFS were analyzed using the Kaplan Ð Meier method. The Log-rank test was used to compare variables and their impact on survival for univariate analysis.Multivariate analysis was performed using Cox's proportional hazards regression model. For comparison of Kaplan Meier curves the long rank test was used, with statistical significance with p<0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 20.0. Results: Main clinical and biological characteristics were summarizing in table 1. From the total of 153 patients, finally 121 were evaluable. During the study 56 patients (46.2%) became in TD and 47 (38.8%) did not develop TD but received a modified disease course treatment. In this sense, most of the patients developed relevant anemia regarding those data (103 out of 121 patients, 85%). Median time to TD or treatment (TFS) was 20 months (1-132) from diagnosis. Secondary MDS (p=0.02), thrombocytosis (>350 109/L) (p=0.007), and neutropenia (<1.5 x 109/L) (p=0.02) were associated with poorer TFS. Thrombocytosis and neutropenia retained statistical significance in the multivariate analysis (Table 2). Among the TD patients (N=56), 42 (75%) received treatment: 28 LEN, 7 ESA and 7 other treatments. Among patients that did not develop TD (N=65), 47 (72.3%) received treatment before TD development: 16 LEN, 28 ESA and 3 other treatments. In order to know the evolution of these patients, survival analysis was performed. Median follow up was 58.9 months among alive patients and 57% of them were alive at the time of the last follow up. Estimated OS at 2 and 5 years was 94% and 64%. Regarding Univariate analysis, platelet <100 x 109/L (p=0.03), patients older than 71 years (p=0.001), and progression into AML (p=0.02) were associated with poorer OS. On the contrary, patients who had received treatment showed better OS (p<0.0001). This benefit is more evident among patients receiving LEN, median OS for patients receiving LEN, ESA/other treatments and not treated group was 137 months (CI 95%: 59,4 -215,5), 99,3 months (CI 95%: 46,6 -152) and 57,9 months (CI 95%: 38,2 -77,6), respectively, p<0.0001 (Figure 1). In the multivariate analysis, patients older than 71 years and LEN treatment retained the statistical significant impact on OS (Table 2). Twenty-eight patients (23%) progressed into AML, median time to AML was 35 months (5-122). When univariate analysis was performed, variables with adverse impact on LFS were platelets <100 x 109/L(p=0.019), neutropenia < 0.8 x 109/L (p=0.026), an additional cytogenetic abnormality (p=0.013) while treatment with LEN had a favorable impact (p=0.035). In the multivariate analysis only the presence of additional cytogenetic abnormalities retained statistical significance (Table 2). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the patients with low risk del(5q) MDS and no TD at diagnosis developed symptomatic anemia very early after diagnosis (20 months). Carefully monitoring should be stablished in order to detect this time point. Outcome of this subset of patients could improve after target therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Del Cañizo: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; janssen: Research Funding; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Díez Campelo:celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Outcome of 472 Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients Treated with Frontline Nilotinib: A Gimema CML WP Analysis

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 458-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Gugliotta ◽  
Fausto Castagnetti ◽  
Massimo Breccia ◽  
Alessandra Iurlo ◽  
Mariella D'Adda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Deep Molecular Response ◽  
First Line Treatment

Abstract BACKGROUND: In chronic phase (CP) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) nilotinib showed better efficacy compared to imatinib. The higher rates of deep molecular response with nilotinib may translate in more patients (pts) eligible for treatment discontinuation. On the other hand, cardiovascular toxicity may limit nilotinib use in selected groups of pts (e.g. elderly pts). AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety, overall and according to age, of first-line treatment with nilotinib in CML pts. METHODS: We analyzed response rates, events and outcome of 472 pts ≥ 18 y of age with CP CML, enrolled in clinical trials of the GIMEMA CML WP with nilotinib frontline. Pts were treated with: nilotinib 300 mg BID (n=276); nilotinib 400 mg BID (n=73); rotation of nilotinib 400 mg BID / imatinib 400 mg OD (3-month periods for each drug)(n=123). The median follow-up was 36 (3-82) months. Pts were further analyzed considering 3 age groups: 18-39 y (98 pts); 40-59 y (217 pts); and ≥ 60 y (157 pts). Definitions: Major molecular response (MR3): BCR-ABL≤0.1% (IS), with > 10.000 ABL copies; MR4: BCR-ABL≤0.01% (IS), with > 10.000 ABL copies. Events: permanent discontinuation of nilotinib for any reason, including adverse events, progression to accelerated/blast phase (AP/BP), or deaths. Arterial thrombotic events (ATEs): peripheral arterial obstructive disease, acute coronary syndrome, chronic ischemic heart disease, significant carotid stenosis and ischemic stroke, or other significant ischemic events. RESULTS: Overall, the cumulative incidences of MR3 by 12, 24, and 36 months were 75, 88, and 93%, respectively. The cumulative incidences of MR4 by 12, 24, and 36 months were 38, 63, and 76%, respectively. Events leading to permanent nilotinib discontinuation occurred in 132 (27.9%) pts. ATEs occurred in 33 (7% of pts) ATEs, corresponding to 19.7 ATEs/1000 pt-y. Fifteen (3.1%) pts progressed to AP/BP. Overall, 23 (4.9%) pts died, 11 of them after progression to AP/BP. The estimated 5-year OS was 93%. The sub-analysis according to age showed that: MR3 and MR4 rates were similar across the 3 age groups (cumulative incidences of MR4 by 24 months were 55, 62, and 70% in pts 18-39 y, 40-59 y, and ≥ 60 y, respectively; p=0.25). Progressions to AP/BP were: 6.1% in pts 18-39 y, 2.8% in pts 40-59 y, and 1.9% in pts ≥ 60 y. ATEs were: 0 in pts 18-39y, 4.1% (11.7/1000 pt-years) in pts 40-59 y, and 15.3% (41.3/1000 pt-years) in pts ≥ 60 y (no difference in ATEs was found between pts 60-69 y and those ≥ 70 y). The 5-y OS was 91, 97, and 89% in pts 18-39 y, 40-59 y, and ≥ 60 y, respectively (p=0.065). Death was always leukemia-related in pts 18-39 y (100%), while it was mainly leukemia-unrelated (75%) in pts ≥ 60 y. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION: Nilotinib as first-line treatment of newly diagnosed CP CML pts showed high rates of deep molecular responses, few progressions to AP/BP, and a high OS. Deep molecular response were similar in all age groups; as expected, ATEs were more frequent in pts > 60 y. These data suggest that: in pts > 60 y, the high efficacy of nilotinib should be weighed against its potential toxicity; in pts < 60 years, nilotinib may be a very good choice, with high efficacy and low toxicity. Disclosures Gugliotta: Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Castagnetti:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Breccia:Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria. Levato:Novartis: Other: Advisory board. Abruzzese:Pfizer: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Soverini:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte Biosciences: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Foà:NOVARTIS: Speakers Bureau; JANSSEN: Other: ADVISORY BOARD, Speakers Bureau; CELTRION: Other: ADVISORY BOARD; INCYTE: Other: ADVISORY BOARD; CELGENE: Other: ADVISORY BOARD, Speakers Bureau; ABBVIE: Other: ADVISORY BOARD, Speakers Bureau; ROCHE: Other: ADVISORY BOARD, Speakers Bureau; GILEAD: Speakers Bureau; AMGEN: Other: ADVISORY BOARD. Cavo:AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pane:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; AMGEN: Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals First-Line Second Generation Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Newly Diagnosed Accelerated Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients.

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 48-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Balsat ◽  
Vincent Alcazer ◽  
Gabriel Etienne ◽  
Gaelle Fossard ◽  
Francoise Huguet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Tyrosine Kinase ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival

Abstract Introduction Up to 10% of patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) are already in accelerated phase (AP) at diagnosis and despite treatment advances in the field of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), management of these pts is challenging. This study aims to examine the benefit of second generation BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI2) as first-line treatment for newly diagnosed AP-CML. Methods Pts meeting criteria for AP-CML at diagnosis and treated with first-line TKI2 (i. e. Nilotinib or Dasatinib) were included in this retrospective multicenter observational national study. AP-CML were defined according to the ELN (Baccarani, Blood 2013) as hematological acceleration (HEM-AP, any of the following features: blasts in PB or marrow 15-29%, or blasts+promyelocytes in PB or marrow >30% with blasts <30%, basophils in PB ≥20%, or persistent thrombocytopenia <100×109/L (unrelated to therapy) and/or chromosomal abnormalities in addition to the Ph at diagnosis (ACA-AP). Pts initiated nilotinib at 6-800 mg BID or dasatinib at 100-140 mg QD with further dose adaptations according to toxicities or response. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and failure-free survival [FFS= progression to blast crisis, death, loss of any previous response (CHR, CCyR, or MMR) discontinuation of TKI2 for toxicity], were analysed since TKI2 initiation in intention-to-treat. Results Sixty-six pts were analysed: 45 males (68%) and 21 females (32%) with a median age at diagnosis of 49 (15-78.5) years. The median follow-up of the cohort was 43.5 (1.7-117) months. We segregated the pts in HEM-AP (n=33) and ACA-AP (n=33) for further analyses. Nine pts with HEM-AP harboured ACA and were analysed in the HEM-AP group. Fusion transcripts were of the Major BCR in 57 pts, 6 pts had atypical BCR-ABL transcripts (2 e19a2, and 1 e1a2 in the HEM-AP group and 2 e19a2 and 1 Ma3 in the ACA-AP group), and 3 transcripts unknown. Not surprisingly, spleen enlargement was significantly greater in the HEM-AP group [10 (5-14.75) vs. 3 (0-10)cm, p=0.014]. PB basophils [median 10 (6-16) vs. 3 (2-5)%, p <0.001], PB blasts [median: 12.05 (7.5-15) vs. 1.5 (0-4)%, p<.001], as well as PB blasts+promyelocytes [median 14 (11-20) vs. 4 (1-7)%, p<.001]. Hemoglobin levels were significantly lower in the HEM-AP group [median 93 (6-113.5) vs 120 (100-134) g/L, p<0.001]. Neither WBC counts, platelets counts, nor BCR-ABL/ABL load differed significantly between the 2 groups. In the ACA-AP group, 10 (30%) pts harbored major route ACA and 23 (70%) pts harbored minor route ACA of whom 3 pts with i(17q) and 1 with 7q abnormalities. In the ACA-AP group, Sokal score was low in 42%, intermediate in 32% and high in 26% of pts (2 pts unknown). Dasatinib was initiated in 19/33 pts (57.5%) in the HEM-AP group and in 8/33 pts (24%) in the ACA-AP group. Treatment responses did not significantly differ between ACA-AP and HEM-AP group, regardless of the TKI2 administered, with 33/33 (100%) vs 31/33 (94%) pts achieving a CHR, 2/33 (6%) pts vs 0/33 (0%) pts achieving a MCyR, 5/33 (15%) pts vs 5/33 (15%) pts achieving CCyR, 9/33 (27%) pts vs 4/33 (12%) pts achieving a MMR respectively. However, 11/33 (33%) HEM-AP vs 22/33 (66%) ACA-AP pts achieved a deep molecular response (p=0.013, Fisher test). Median times to CHR and MMR were not significantly different between ACA-AP group and HEM-AP group with 1.05 vs 1.25 months (p=0.088) for CHR and 6 vs 7 months (p=0.156) for MMR, respectively. Overall, the estimated 7-yr FFS rate was 56.92% (95%CI: 40-81), 7-yr PFS was 83.42% (95% CI: 69.6-100%) and 7-yr OS was 87.14% (95%CI: 73.5-100%) (Figure 1.) with no significant differences between ACA-AP vs HEM-AP pts [7-yr FFS: 57.7 vs. 62%, p=0.739; 7-yr PFS: 84.7% vs. 84%, p=0.185; 7-yr OS: 88.9% vs 86.6%, p=0.132] respectively. There was also no difference in FFS, PFS and OS according to the type of TKI2. The only factors influencing negatively OS were the % of BM blasts (HR=1.17, 95%CI: 1.1-1.28, p<0.001) and the % of BM blasts+promyelocytes (HR=1.14, 95%CI: 1.06-1.22, p<0.001). We identified too few significant factors in univariate analysis to perform a multivariate analysis. Conclusion The initiation of a TKI2 in newly diagnosed AP-CML pts induces excellent response and survival rates, probably superior to that of Imatinib first-line, and counterbalances the negative impact of this advanced disease, particularly in HEM AP subgroup. Disclosures Etienne: Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Speakers Bureau. Berger:Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mahon:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Rea:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Nicolini:BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Biosciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sun Pharma Ltd: Consultancy.

Real World Efficacy Evaluation of Branded and Copy Imatinib in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: A Retrospective Multicentric Study from Argentina

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 36-37
Author(s):  
Ana Ines Varela ◽  
Georgina Bendek ◽  
Carolina Pavlovsky ◽  
Maria Josefina Freitas ◽  
Veronica Ventriglia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Sokal Score

Background: Data on the safety and efficacy of copy drugs is usually unavailable. Imatinib mesylate is used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients in Argentina since 2002. During the last decade more than ten different imatinib copies are marketed by the different health-care systems in the country, usually for cost issues. In spite of the undoubted benefit of this tyrosine-kinase inhibitor indication in CML, there is no solid evidence that supports copy drug equivalent outcomes for this patient population. Aim: To compare the clinical presentation, treatment response and outcome of a chronic phase (CP) CML patient cohort treated with branded and copy imatinib in the real-life setting. Methods: Multicentric, retrospective trial based on data obtained from medical charts of adult CP CML patients treated with imatinib in 9 centers in Argentina from 2002 to 2020.We analyzed demographic characteristics and clinical characteristics described for branded and copy imatinib treated cohorts. Frequency of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) at 12 months, Major molecular response or better(≥MMR) at 12, 18 and 24 months and overall MR4.0, MR4.5 and deep molecular response (MR4.0 +MR4.5 IS) were analyzed. Event was defined as failure, progression or CML related death. Kaplan Meier comparison of event free, progression free and overall survival. Statistics: IBM SPSS version 1. Results: A total of 568 CP CML adult patients (pt) treated with imatinib were included. Mean age at diagnosis: 45.7 years (range 18 - 85). Male 55.6% (316/568). Sokal Score was recorded in 471 pt: 57% (269/471) low, 26% (122/471) intermediate and 17% (80/471) high-risk. Median follow-up 107 months (RIQ: 36-149). Branded imatinib treatment 330 (58%) and imatinib copies 238 (42%). For branded and copy imatinib cohorts mean age 46,1 (18-85) and 45.3(18-80), male 53% (175/330) and 59% (141/238), median follow up 102 (RIQ 101-130) and 61 (RIQ 62-146) respectively. Sokal score low 58% (164/284) and 56% (105/187), intermediate 27% (77/284) and 24% (45/187) and high 15% (43/284) and19% (37/187). Frequency of CCyR at 12 months 71% (67/94) and 69% (41/59), ≥MMR at 12 months 57% (79/138) and 43% (39/89), ≥MMR 18m 66 % (61/92) and 71% (43/60), ≥MMR 24m 65% (96/147) and 79% (58/73). Overall MR4, MR 4.5 and Deep MR with branded imatinib 62.4% (186/298), 42% (118/276) and 63% (189/300), compared to 45(97/214), 24% (50/207) and 46% (99/215) with copies. Difference in evaluation throughout the treatment periods with loss of data did not allow response rate statistical comparison in predetermined timepoints. Kaplan Meier Event free survival median 229 months vs 75 months p 0.001, Progression free survival mean 318 months vs 208 pt 0.034 and Overall Survival mean 275 months vs 206 months for branded and copy imatinib respectively. Discussion: Several case reports have shown poor outcomes in patients treated with imatinib copy drugs, including loss of responses previously attained with branded imatinib. This study reports data from a large cohort of CP CML patients treated in daily practice during a long period of time. Treatment results at determined timepoints is comparable. Although management and treatment decisions were performed in different time periods, results show different outcomes in EFS and PFS between patients treated with branded vs copy imatinib. Overall survival in both cohorts is comparable. As studies assesing the safety and efficacy of the copy drugs compared with branded imatinib will hardly be performed this evidence calls for careful attention and strict follow up measures when managing CML patients with copy imatinib. Figure Disclosures Varela: Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Pavlovsky:Pint Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Freitas:Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board. Pavlovsky:Varifarma: Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grants, Speakers Bureau. Moiraghi:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau.

Nilotinib Versus Imatinib in Patients (pts) with Newly Diagnosed Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive (Ph+) Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CML-CP): ENESTnd 36-Month (mo) Follow-up

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 452-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Saglio ◽  
Philipp D. LeCoutre ◽  
Ricardo Pasquini ◽  
Saengsuree Jootar ◽  
Hirohisa Nakamae ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Philadelphia Chromosome ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Abstract 452FN2 Background: In ENESTnd, pts treated with nilotinib demonstrated higher and faster rates of major molecular response (MMR, ≤ 0.1% BCR-ABLIS), deeper molecular response (MR4, ≤ 0.01%IS and MR4.5, ≤ 0.0032%IS), and complete cytogenetic responses (CCyR) along with significantly lower rates of progression to AP/BC and fewer CML-related deaths compared with imatinib by 12 and 24 mo. Here, we report data with a minimum follow-up of 24 mo; however, efficacy and safety data based on considerably longer follow-up of ≥ 36 mo will be presented. As demonstrated in IRIS and other imatinib trials, most pts who progress on imatinib do so within the first 3 years of therapy. Thus, this 36-mo update of ENESTnd will be important to further verify the benefits of nilotinib in newly-diagnosed pts. Methods: 846 adult pts with newly-diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP were randomized to nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (BID) (n = 282), nilotinib 400 mg BID (n = 281), or imatinib 400 mg once daily (QD) (n = 283). MMR, MR4, MR4.5, time to progression to AP/BC on treatment, progression-free survival (PFS) on treatment, and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: By 24 mo, both doses of nilotinib demonstrated significantly higher rates of MMR, MR4, and MR4.5 vs imatinib (Table). Nilotinib-treated pts achieved median BCR-ABLIS levels of 0.09% (300 mg BID) and 0.10% (400 mg BID) by 12 mo, while this level of reduction was not observed before 24 mo on imatinib. More pts with CCyR achieved MMR at 12 and 24 mo with either dose of nilotinib vs imatinib (Table). Regardless of Sokal risk, rates of MMR and MR4.5 were higher for nilotinib at both doses vs imatinib (Table). Progression to AP/BC (excluding clonal evolution [CE]) on treatment was significantly lower for nilotinib vs imatinib (2 pts and 3 pts with nilotinib 300 mg BID [P = .0059] and 400 mg BID [P =.0196]), respectively vs 12 pts with imatinib). After achieving CCyR, 4 pts treated with imatinib progressed to AP/BC and 2 pts treated with nilotinib 400 mg BID progressed after achieving both CCyR and MMR (1 also achieved MR4). No pt who achieved MR4.5 progressed at any time. All but 1 pt who progressed to AP/BC on treatment were in the intermediate and high Sokal risk groups; 1 pt treated with nilotinib 400 mg BID progressed in the low Sokal risk group who had an E255V mutation at progression. When considering progression events of pts after discontinuation of treatment, an additional 7, 2, and 6 events (excluding CE) were observed with nilotinib 300 mg BID, nilotinib 400 mg BID and imatinib, respectively. Twice as many pts had emergent mutations on imatinib (n = 20) vs nilotinib (n = 10 on 300 mg BID; n = 8 on 400 mg BID). At 24 mo, OS remained similar in all groups, but there were fewer CML-related deaths in both nilotinib 300 mg BID (5 pts) and nilotinib 400 mg BID (3 pts) arms vs imatinib (10 pts). Both drugs were well tolerated and few new adverse events (AEs) and lab abnormalities were observed between 12- and 24-mo of follow-up. Nilotinib 300 mg BID had the fewest discontinuations due to AEs/lab abnormalities (9% vs 13% and 10% with nilotinib 400 mg BID and imatinib, respectively). Conclusions: With a minimum follow-up of 24 mo, nilotinib continued to demonstrate superiority vs imatinib with faster and deeper molecular responses and a significantly decreased risk of progression. These data support the use of nilotinib as a standard of care option in newly-diagnosed adult pts with Ph+ CML-CP. Disclosures: Saglio: Novartis Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Nilotinib is a safe and effective treatment for patients with CML. LeCoutre:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Pasquini:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau. Nakamae:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Flinn:nOVARTIS: Research Funding. Hochhaus:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hughes:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Larson:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hoenekopp:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gallagher:Novartis: Employment. Yu:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Blakesley:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Employment. Kim:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Novartis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding.

Enestnd 4-Year (y) Update: Continued Superiority of Nilotinib Vs Imatinib in Patients (pts) with Newly Diagnosed Philadelphia Chromosome–Positive (Ph+) Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CML-CP)

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 1676-1676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
Surapol Issaragrisil ◽  
Richard E Clark ◽  
Josy Reiffers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Molecular Responses ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Abstract 1676 Background: Pts treated with nilotinib in the ENESTnd phase 3 trial achieved higher and faster rates of major molecular response (MMR, ≤ 0.1% BCR-ABLIS), deeper molecular responses (MR4, ≤ 0.01%IS and MR4.5, ≤ 0.0032%IS), significantly lower rates of progression to accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC), and fewer CML-related deaths compared with imatinib by 1, 2, and 3 y. Here, we report data with a minimum follow-up of 3 y; efficacy and safety data based on longer follow-up of 4 y will be presented to further assess the impact of nilotinib vs imatinib in pts with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP. Methods: Adult pts (N = 846) with newly-diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP were randomized to nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (BID; n = 282), nilotinib 400 mg BID (n = 281), or imatinib 400 mg once daily (QD; n = 283). MMR, MR4, MR4.5, time to progression to AP/BC, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: Significantly higher rates of MMR, MR4, and MR4.5 by 3 y were achieved in nilotinib- vs imatinib-treated pts (Table). Nilotinib led to the achievement of higher rates of molecular responses regardless of Sokal risk group or age. The difference in the rates of both MR4 and MR4.5 continued to be significantly higher for nilotinib, with the difference in favor of nilotinib increasing from 1 to 3 y (MR4: 9%-14% difference by 1 y, 18%-24% difference by 3 y; MR4.5: 6%-10% difference by 1 y, 13%-17% difference by 3 y). Among patients who achieved MMR, more pts achieved MR4 or MR4.5 on nilotinib 300 mg BID (68%) and nilotinib 400 mg BID (62%) compared with imatinib (49%). No pt in any arm progressed after achieving MR4.5. Significantly fewer pts progressed to AP/BC on nilotinib vs imatinib (Table). No new progressions occurred on core treatment between the 2-y and 3-y analyses. When events occurring after treatment discontinuation were included, the rates of progression to AP/BC were also significantly lower with nilotinib vs imatinib (Table). Nearly twice as many pts had emergent mutations on imatinib (n = 21) vs either nilotinib arm (n = 11 in each arm), with 5 pts overall developing mutations between 2 and 3 y. OS remained similar in all groups at 3 y, but fewer CML-related deaths occurred in both the nilotinib 300 mg BID (n = 5) and 400 mg BID (n = 4) arms vs imatinib (n = 14). Both drugs were well tolerated. Few new adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities were observed between 2 and 3 y. Rates of discontinuation due to AEs were 10%, 14%, and 11% in the nilotinib 300 mg BID, nilotinib 400 mg BID, and imatinib arms, respectively. Conclusions: Nilotinib continues to demonstrate superiority vs imatinib, yielding faster and deeper molecular responses and a significantly decreased risk of progression. Results of ENESTnd support the use of nilotinib as a standard of care option in newly diagnosed adult pts with Ph+ CML-CP and should be considered to replace imatinib as the standard-of-care frontline therapy for patients with Ph+ CML-CP. Disclosures: Kantarjian: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Kim:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Research Funding; II-Yang: Research Funding. Clark:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Reiffers:BMS: Expense reimbursement for travel expenses Other; Novartis: Expense reimbursement for travel expenses, Expense reimbursement for travel expenses Other. Nicolini:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hughes:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; CSL: Research Funding. Hochhaus:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kemp:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Fan:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Waltzman:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Saglio:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Larson:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Treatment-Free Remissions in Newly Diagnosed CP CML Patients Treated with the Combination of Nilotinib + Pegylated Interferon Alpha 2a Versus Nilotinib Alone in the National Phase III Petals Trial

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2553-2553
Author(s):  
Franck E. Nicolini ◽  
Gabriel Etienne ◽  
Francoise Huguet ◽  
Agnès Guerci-Bresler ◽  
Aude Charbonnier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Obstructive Sleep

Abstract Aims: Combining 2GTKI+pegylated IFN-a (Peg-IFN) represents an attractive approach for first-line treatment of CP CML, while providing somewhat light additional AEs, it induces high rates of deep molecular responses. We evaluated nilotinib (NIL) alone versus NIL+Peg-IFN in newly diagnosed CP-CML patients (pts) in a randomised phase III trial (PETALs, EudraCT 2013-004974-82) and analysed here the proportion of patients reaching Treatment-Free Remission (TFR) and outcome. Methods: Newly diagnosed CP CML pts ≤65 years, without vascular history were randomized 1:1 to get NIL 300 mg BID alone [M0 to M72 (unless TFR), arm A] vs Peg-IFN alone for 30 days (M-1→M0) 30 mg/wk, prior to NIL 300 mg BID + Peg-IFN 30 mg/wk 2 wks, upgraded to 45 mg/wk thereafter, for up to 2 y (M0 to M24, arm B) followed by NIL alone until M72 unless TFR. The primary endpoint was the rate of MR4.5 by M12, and after amendment, the trial was extended to 72 months follow-up in order to add, as a secondary endpoint, the TFR rate in pts reaching MR4.5 ≥2 y. The trigger for treatment resumption was loss of MMR. All molecular assessments were centralised until M36, and in case of TFR, MR4.5 was centrally confirmed at M0 TFR, and further molecular follow-up was then performed locally. All molecular quantifications are expressed as BCR-ABL1/ABL1 (IS) in % with ≥32,000 copies of ABL1 as control in the central lab and in the local labs all involved to the pluri-annual French external quality controls. Results are analysed in intention-to-treat. Results: As previously reported, 200 pts were randomized (99 in A, 101 in B), 130 M and 35 F in each arm, median age of 46 (18-66) y. The median follow-up (FU) since diagnosis is now 47.5 (33.77-62.39) Mo. and the median FU since discontinuation is 9.86 (5.8-23) Mo. in arm A and 15.57 (12.62-22.77) Mo. in arm B. Sokal and ELTS scores were high in 25% and 2.5%, intermediate in 33% and 16.5% and low in 42% and 81% pts respectively, equally balanced. All pts harboured a "Major" BCR transcript. We have previously shown that by M12, the rate of MR4.5 was 15.9% vs 21.5% (primary endpoint met, p=0.049) and that the overall cumulative incidence of MR4.5 was somewhat superior in arm B (54.6 [43.7-65.5] %) vs A (44 [31.5-54] %), p=0.05. Two pts died, one from myeloid blast crisis before TFR (arm A), one from a solid tumour (arm A). Overall, 40 pts (20%) reached the TFR criteria, 21 in arm A with a median FU of 9.86 (5.8-23) Mo. and 19 in arm B with a median FU since Nilo cessation of 15.57 (12.62-22.77) Mo, partly related to slightly different time for obtaining sustained MR4.5 in favour of arm B (16 vs 13 Mo.). For these 40 pts reaching TFR criteria, there was no statistical difference in terms of age at diagnosis and age at TFR, gender, Sokal, ELTS, FU since diagnosis, undetectability at cessation, BCR-ABL1 levels at 3 Mo. after cessation between the 2 arms. The survival without loss of MMR after cessation is illustrated in Figure 1. It looks superior in arm B over arm A, but did not reach statistical difference (p=0.445), but the FU is very short after cessation yet, especially in arm A. Once NIL was resumed in the pts that failed TFR, all pts recovered MMR within 6 Mo., with no difference between arms (p=1.00). In univariate analysis, we did not identify significant factor impacting on the TFR success (age at cessation, sex, undetectability at cessation, Sokal, ELTS) except the BCR-ABL1 value at M3-TFR (undetectable versus detectable, HR 7.15 [2.06-24.75], p=0.002), and the duration of MR4.5 before discontinuation (HR 1.11 [1.03-1.19], p=0.004). During this TFR phase 7 SAEs were reported in arm A (2 pregnancies, 1 obstructive sleep apnea, 1 fever episode, 1 carotid stenosis and 1 femoral stenosis in the same patient at 2 Mo. after cessation, 1 lung carcinoid tumor) and 2 in arm B (1 persistent atrial fibrillation, 1 cholecystectomy). Conclusions: The combination of NIL + Peg-IFN induces higher MR4.5 rates by M36 in newly diagnosed CP CML pts that may translate in higher successful TFR rates, however a longer follow-up is needed to see consistent significant differences. Updated data will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Nicolini: Kartos Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding; Incyte Biosciences: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sun Pharma Ltd.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria. Etienne: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Huguet: Novartis: Other: Advisor; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisor; Celgene: Other: Advisor; BMS: Other: Advisor; Amgen: Other: Advisor; Pfizer: Other: Advisor. Guerci-Bresler: Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Charbonnier: Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Rousselot: Incyte, Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Deconinck: Stemline Therapetutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imunogen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Travel Grants, Research Funding; Abbevie: Research Funding. Rea: Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document