scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Generic Imatinib Compared to Glivec in Chronic Phase - Chronic Myeloid Leukemia - a Multicenter, Observational Study

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 46-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katia B Pagnano ◽  
Carmen Fava ◽  
Eliana C Miranda ◽  
Israel Bendit ◽  
Fernanda S Seguro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Financial Support ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Initial Therapy ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Generic Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Generic Groups ◽  
Starting Date ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Glivec was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) approved for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treatment and its efficacy has been demonstrated in a large number of trials. Generic formulations have been used recently as a more cost effective treatment, but there are few studies that have prospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of these drugs.Aims: The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of generic imatinib in CP-CML in first line therapy. Methods: This is a multicenter, observational, cohort-type study. The prospective cohort consisted of patients who initiated treatment with generic imatinib between January 2015 and September 2017; whereas the retrospective cohort was treated with Glivec between January 2010 and December 2011. All patients started imatinib in CP, less than six months from diagnosis. Patients were managed according to European Leukemia Net (ELN) 2009 and 2013 recommendations. The definition of the responses followed the ELN 2013 criteria. Adverse events were assessed based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0.3, 2010. Event-free survival (EFS) was measured from starting date of treatment until loss of complete hematologic response, loss of major cytogenetic response, progression to accelerated (AP) or blast crisis (BC) or death from any cause at any time during initial therapy or discontinuation of imatinib by any cause. Patients that switched from Glivec to generic where censored. Overall survival (OS) was measured from starting date of imatinib until to the date of death from any cause while on therapy or last seen. Progression-free survival (PFS) was measured from starting date of imatinib to transformation to AP or BC or deaths while on therapy. Survival curves were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Cox regression was used with Backward Wald Method. SPSS version 21.0 was used applying the chi-square and t-test, when adequate. All analysis considered p-value <0.05 as significant. Results: A total of 445 patients were analyzed (Glivec=285; Generic=160). The median age was 54 years (18-87) in Glivec and 50 (18-89) in the Generic group (P=0.027). Sokal score stratification in Glivec and generic groups, was respectively: low risk 14.4%/25.7%; intermediate risk 42.3%/38.2% and high risk 43.3%/36.1% (P=0.02). B3a2 frequency was 51.5% vs. 37.7% in Glivec and Generic group, respectively, and b2a2 41.4% vs. 53.8% (P=0.017). There was no significant difference in gender, Hasford, EUTOS scores and ECOG. The median follow-up was 25 months (0-71) and 11 months (0-31) for Glivec and Generic groups, respectively (P<0.0001). The median time between diagnosis and imatinib starting was 18 days (0-119) in Glivec and 27 days (0-168) in the Generic group (P= 0.015). The rate of treatment failure at 3 months according to the ELN 2013 criteria was 6.6% and 14.7% in Glivec vs. Generic (P=0.04); whereas at 6 months there were no significant differences (12.3% vs. 18.9%; P=0.09). There was no significant difference in grade 3 and 4 hematological and non-hematological toxicity during the follow-up. There were 5 and 3 cases of progression in the Glivec and Generic group, respectively. In the Cox regression multivariate analysis, the independent factors for EFS were age at diagnosis (HR=1.03; CI95% 1.00-1.07; P=0.039) and toxicity grade 3-4 (HR 3.37; CI95% 1.08-10.4; P=0.036). The initial therapy was discontinued for the following reasons, in Glivec and generic group respectively: resistance (19.7% vs. 47.5%), intolerance (15.3% vs. 23.7%), non-adherence (4.4% vs. 3.4%), death (2.0% vs. 6.8%), clinical trial (0.5% vs. 10.2%), progression (2.0% vs. 5.0%), pregnancy (0 vs. 3.4%), switch from Glivec to generic (56.1%). OS, PFS and EFS at 24 months were higher in Glivec group in comparison to Generic (99% vs. 96%, P=0.016), (98% vs. 95%, P= 0.026) and (73% vs. 58%; P<0.0001 respectively. Conclusion: The group treated with generic imatinib presented higher rate of failure at 3 months and lower OS, PFS and EFS at 24 months. Differences between the groups included a longer time to initiate treatment in the Generic group, a higher proportion of patients with b2a2 transcripts, which were related to an inferior rate of molecular responses and survival in other studies. There was no difference in the safety profile. The long-term impact in prognosis will be evaluated after a longer follow-up. Disclosures Pagnano: Shire: Other: Lecture; Abbvie: Consultancy; EMS: Other: Financial support for participation in congress; Novartis: Consultancy. Magalhaes:Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Lecture. Clementino:EMS: Other: Financial support for congress. Gaidano:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Centrone:EMS: Other: Financial support for congress, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Meiers-Squibb: Other: Financial support for congress, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Financial support for congress, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: Financial support for congress, Speakers Bureau. Fogliatto:Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Giai:Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Bortolheiro:Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanoffi: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Results of Dasatinib Therapy in Patients With Early Chronic-Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 398-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge E. Cortes ◽  
Dan Jones ◽  
Susan O'Brien ◽  
Elias Jabbour ◽  
Farhad Ravandi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Cytogenetic Response ◽  
Initial Therapy ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Nonhematologic Toxicity ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

PurposeDasatinib is effective therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) after imatinib failure. In this study, we investigate the efficacy of dasatinib as initial therapy for patients with CML in early chronic phase.Patients and MethodsPatients with newly diagnosed CML in early chronic phase were randomly assigned to receive dasatinib 100 mg once daily or 50 mg twice daily as initial therapy.ResultsAmong 50 patients observed for at least 3 months, 49 patients (98%) achieved a complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), and 41 patients (82%) achieved a major molecular response (MMR). Responses occurred rapidly, with 94% of patients achieving CCyR by 6 months. There was no difference in response rate by treatment arm. The projected event-free survival rate at 24 months is 88%, and all patients are alive after a median follow-up time of 24 months. Grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 21% and 10% of patients, respectively. Nonhematologic toxicity was usually grade 1 to 2. There was no significant difference in toxicity between the two arms, and the actual median dose at 12 months was 100 mg (range, 20 to 100 mg).ConclusionDasatinib is an effective agent for the initial management of CML in early chronic phase, producing high rates of CCyR and MMR.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Generic Imatinib Compared to Glivec in Chronic Phase - Chronic Myeloid Leukemia-Single Center Retrospective Analysis

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4162-4162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seema Shrinivas Bhatwadekar ◽  
Shubhangi Vishwas Deshpande ◽  
Arpan Mehta ◽  
Parth Shah
Keyword(s):  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
International Scale ◽  
Deep Molecular Response ◽  
Generic Groups ◽  
Starting Date ◽  
Sokal Score

Introduction: Glivec, Imatinib (IM), first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) has proven its efficacy and safety in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia - Chronic Phase (CML CP) in a large number of trials. In developing country like India Generic Imatinib formulations have been used recently as a more cost effective treatment, data on efficacy and safety of these drugs is sparse. Aim: To analyse and compare safety profile, the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data of CML-CP patients receiving Glivec/Generic IM as first line therapy Method: A single centre retrospective analysis done on CML-CP patients who initiated treatment with either Glivec or Generic IM between July 2012 and July 2019 at Hemato-oncology Care Centre (HOCC) Vadodara India. Total 109 newly diagnosed CML-CP received IM as 400mg daily dose, dose was adjusted if significant cytopenia observed or in paediatric patients. Response assessment was made as per NCCN CML Version 1 2019 guidelines.Molecular monitoring of patients was done through BCR-ABL1 RQPCR, reported on international scale. Major Molecular Response (MMR) was considered when the ratio on international scale was less than 0.1% level or ≥ 3-log reduction in BCR-ABL1 mRNA from the standardized baseline, while Deep Molecular Response-MR4 was considered when the ratio on international scale was less than 0.01%.OS was measured from starting date of IM until to the date of death from any cause while on therapy or last seen.PFS was measured from starting date of IM to transformation to AP or BC or deaths while on therapy. Survival curves were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Cox regression with Backward Wald Method, Chi-square test and t-test is applied using SPSS software version 21.0. A p-value <0.05 is considered to be statistically significant. Results: A Total 109 patients were analysed, received Glivec (47)43% or Generic IM (62)56%. The mean (SD) age was 42.2 years (13.3 years) in Glivec and 47.5 years (14.9 years) in the Generic IM group (P=0.06). There was male preponderance in both groups (Glivec 55%, Generic IM 62 %). Sokal score stratification in Glivec and Generic groups, was respectively: low risk 43%/40%; intermediate risk 36%/48% and high risk 21%/11% (P=0.08). The median follow‐up period was 36 months (range, 9-84). MMR was 61% and 38% in Glivec and Generic IM respectively(p=0.02), MMR was achieved in 40%,04%,11%,06% of Glivec and 29%,2%,5%,2% of Generic IM group patients, at 1st,2nd,3rd,4th year of treatment respectively(P=0.15).Deep Molecular Response-MR4 was significantly higher 40% in Glivec vs 23% in Generic IM group (P=0.01). Nearly 35% of patients were lost to follow up, 28% and 40% in Glivec and Generic IM group respectively(p=0.27). Reasons for drop out were - cost constraints, noncompliance, lack of understanding, lack of transport. Dose limiting cytopenia was observed in initial 3 months of treatment in 12% and 23 % in Glivec and Generic IM group respectively(P=0.28).The most common non haematological side effects in Glivec and Generic groups were skin hyperpigmentation 19%,17%, abdominal discomfort 16 %,11% ,Facial Puffiness 9%,5%, respectively(P =0.73). In each group 4% patients progressed to AP, managed with second generation TKI in Generic IM group and with increasing dose of Glivec to 600mg daily in Glivec group. Total 5% patients progressed to BC and died, 3% in Glivec vs 2% in Generic IM group. The risk factors for progression to AP or BC were high Sokal score, poor molecular response and dose limiting cytopenia. OS and PFS at 36 months were similar in Glivec and Generic IM (93.6% vs. 96.8% P=0.834) and (89.4% vs. 91.9%, P=0.839) respectively. Conclusion: Both the groups have shown similar OS and PFS at 36 months of median follow up, there was also no difference in the safety profile, meeting Generic IM unmet needs in developing country. However in view of higher MMR and Deep molecular response-MR4 in Glivec group, need long term follow up to determine its impact on outcome especially in reference to treatment free remission. Figure Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Slowly resorbable biosynthetic mesh: 2-year results in VHWG grade 3 hernia repair

Hernia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. M. J. Van Rooijen ◽  
T. Tollens ◽  
L. N. Jørgensen ◽  
T. S. de Vries Reilingh ◽  
G. Piessen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Hernia Recurrence ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Elective Repair ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Introduction Information on the long-term performance of biosynthetic meshes is scarce. This study analyses the performance of biosynthetic mesh (Phasix™) over 24 months. Methods A prospective, international European multi-center trial is described. Adult patients with a Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) grade 3 incisional hernia larger than 10 cm2, scheduled for elective repair, were included. Biosynthetic mesh was placed in sublay position. Short-term outcomes included 3-month surgical site occurrences (SSO), and long-term outcomes comprised hernia recurrence, reoperation, and quality of life assessments until 24 months. Results Eighty-four patients were treated with biosynthetic mesh. Twenty-two patients (26.2%) developed 34 SSOs, of which 32 occurred within 3 months (primary endpoint). Eight patients (11.0%) developed a hernia recurrence. In 13 patients (15.5%), 14 reoperations took place, of which 6 were performed for hernia recurrence (42.9%), 3 for mesh infection (21.4%), and in 7 of which the mesh was explanted (50%). Compared to baseline, quality of life outcomes showed no significant difference after 24 months. Despite theoretical resorption, 10.7% of patients reported presence of mesh sensation in daily life 24 months after surgery. Conclusion After 2 years of follow-up, hernia repair with biosynthetic mesh shows manageable SSO rates and favorable recurrence rates in VHWG grade 3 patients. No statistically significant improvement in quality of life or reduction of pain was observed. Few patients report lasting presence of mesh sensation. Results of biosynthetic mesh after longer periods of follow-up on recurrences and remodeling will provide further valuable information to make clear recommendations. Trial registration Registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02720042), March 25, 2016.

scholarly journals FAS and Subsequent Therapies in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane E. Rogers ◽  
Michael Lam ◽  
Daniel M. Halperin ◽  
Cecile G. Dagohoy ◽  
James C. Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
Well Differentiated ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Line Of Therapy

We evaluated outcomes of treatment with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), doxorubicin, and streptozocin (FAS) in well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) and its impact on subsequent therapy (everolimus or temozolomide). Advanced PanNET patients treated at our center from 1992 to 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients received bolus 5-FU (400 mg/m2), streptozocin (400 mg/m2) (both IV, days 1-5) and doxorubicin (40 mg/m2 IV, day 1) every 28 days. Overall response rate (ORR) was assessed using RECIST version 1.1. Of 243 eligible patients, 220 were evaluable for ORR, progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity. Most (90%) had metastatic, nonfunctional PanNETs; 14% had prior therapy. ORR to FAS was 41% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 36-48%). Median follow-up was 61 months. Median PFS was 20 (95% CI: 15-23) months; median overall survival (OS) was 63 (95% CI: 60-71) months. Cox regression analyses suggested improvement with first-line vs subsequent lines of FAS therapy. Main adverse events ≥ grade 3 were neutropenia (10%) and nausea/vomiting (5.5%). Dose reductions were required in 32% of patients. Post-FAS everolimus (n=108; 68% second line) had a median PFS of 10 (95% CI: 8-14) months. Post-FAS temozolomide (n=60; 53% > fourth line) had an ORR of 13% and median PFS of 5.2 (95% CI: 4-12) months. In this largest reported cohort of PanNETs treated with chemotherapy, FAS demonstrated activity without significant safety concerns. FAS did not appear to affect subsequent PFS with everolimus; this sequence is being evaluated prospectively. Responses were noted with subsequent temozolomide-based regimens although PFS was possibly limited by line of therapy.

Short-term outcomes associated with temozolomide or PCV chemotherapy for 1p/19q-codeleted WHO grade 3 oligodendrogliomas: a national evaluation

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nayan Lamba ◽  
Malia McAvoy ◽  
Vasileios K Kavouridis ◽  
Timothy R Smith ◽  
Mehdi Touat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cox Regression ◽  
Extent Of Resection ◽  
First Line ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Who Grade ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Pcv Chemotherapy ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
National Analysis

Abstract Background The optimal chemotherapy regimen between temozolomide and procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) remains uncertain for W.H.O. grade 3 oligodendroglioma (Olig3) patients. We therefore investigated this question using national data. Methods Patients diagnosed with radiotherapy-treated 1p/19q-codeleted Olig3 between 2010-2018 were identified from the National Cancer Database. The OS associated with first-line single-agent temozolomide vs. multi-agent PCV was estimated by Kaplan-Meier techniques and evaluated by multivariable Cox regression. Results 1,596 radiotherapy-treated 1p/19q-codeleted Olig3 patients were identified: 88.6% (n=1,414) treated with temozolomide and 11.4% (n=182) with PCV (from 5.4% in 2010 to 12.0% in 2018) in the first-line setting. The median follow-up was 35.5 months (interquartile range [IQR] 20.7-60.6 months) with 63.3% of patients alive at time of analysis. There was a significant difference in unadjusted OS between temozolomide (5yr-OS 58.9%, 95%CI: 55.6-62.0) and PCV (5yr-OS 65.1%, 95%CI: 54.8-73.5; p=0.04). However, a significant OS difference between temozolomide and PCV was not observed in the Cox regression analysis adjusted by age and extent of resection (PCV vs. temozolomide HR 0.81, 95%CI: 0.59-1.11, p=0.18). PCV was more frequently used for younger Olig3s, but otherwise was not associated with patient’s insurance status or care setting. Conclusions In a national analysis of Olig3s, first-line PCV chemotherapy was associated with a slightly improved unadjusted short-term OS compared to temozolomide; but not following adjustment by patient age and extent of resection. There has been an increase in PCV utilization since 2010. These findings provide preliminary data while we await the definitive results from the CODEL trial.

scholarly journals 354 Lenvatinib and pembrolizumab in advanced endometrial carcinoma (EC): long-term efficacy and safety update from a phase 1b/2 study

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A381-A381
Author(s):  
Vicky Makker ◽  
Carol Aghajanian ◽  
Allen Cohn ◽  
Margarita Romeo ◽  
Raquel Bratos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Efficacy Analysis ◽  
Phase 1B ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Cutoff Date

BackgroundLenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR 1–3, FGFR 1–4, PDGFRα, RET, and KIT. Pembrolizumab is an anti-programmed death-1 monoclonal antibody. We previously reported results from a cohort of 108 patients with metastatic EC (data cutoff date, January 10, 2019) who received lenvatinib + pembrolizumab as part of an ongoing multicenter, open-label, phase 1b/2 study evaluating the combination treatment in patients with selected solid tumors (NCT02501096). Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab showed a tolerable safety profile and promising antitumor activity per immune-related (ir) Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) by investigator assessment, including an objective response rate (ORR) of 38.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.7–48.7), median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3–8.7), and median overall survival (OS) of 16.7 months (95% CI, 15.0-not estimable).1 Here we present updated efficacy and safety data (data cutoff date: August 18, 2020).MethodsPatients included in the EC cohort had histologically confirmed, measurable metastatic EC and had received ≤2 prior chemotherapies (unless discussed with the sponsor). Patients received lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks). The phase 2 efficacy endpoints included ORR, PFS, OS, and duration of response. Tumor assessments for primary and secondary endpoints were evaluated by investigators per irRECIST.ResultsThe 108 patients from the key efficacy analysis set for the previously reported results were all included in these updated analyses. Median follow-up duration for the study was 34.7 months. Efficacy outcomes are summarized in table 1. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 104 (96%) patients (94 [87%] grade ≤3, 10 [9%] grade ≥4). TRAEs led to study-drug interruption of 1 or both drugs in 80 (74.1%) patients and dose reductions of lenvatinib in 73 (67.6%) patients; 23 (21.3%) patients discontinued 1 or both drugs due to a TRAE. The most common grade ≥3 TRAEs were hypertension (33.3%), lipase increased (9.3%), fatigue (8.3%), and diarrhea (7.4%).Abstract 354 Table 1ConclusionsWith extended follow-up, our updated efficacy analysis continued to show clinical benefit in patients with metastatic EC who received lenvatinib + pembrolizumab. Moreover, the combination had a manageable safety profile that was generally consistent with the established safety profiles of the individual monotherapies. No new safety signals were detected. A phase 3 study of lenvatinib + pembrolizumab versus treatment of physician’s choice in advanced endometrial cancer further supports the lasting clinical benefits observed in our study.2Trial Registration www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02501096ReferencesMakker V, Taylor MH, Aghajanian C, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 2020;38(26):2981–2992.Makker V, Colombo N, Casado Herráez A, et al. A multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3 study to compare Ethics ApprovalThis study was approved by the following ethics committees/institutional review boards (IRBs): Oregon Health & Sciences University IRB, IntegReview IRB, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center IRB, University of Pennsylvania Office of Regulatory Affairs IRB, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute IRB, The University of Chicago Biological Sciences Division IRB, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center IRB, Western IRB, Quorum Review IRB, US Oncology, Inc. IRB, CEIm - Comité de Ética de la Investigación con Medicamentos, Regional Komite for Medisinsk og Helsefagli Forskningsetikk, and REC - Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics. All participants gave informed consent before taking part in this study.ConsentNo identifying information is contained in this abstract so no permission from participants is considered necessary.

scholarly journals Which One, Generic Vs Original Glivec Is More Effective in Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia?

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4156-4156
Author(s):  
Ekin Kircali ◽  
Guldane Cengiz Seval ◽  
Sinem Civriz Bozdag ◽  
Selami Kocak Toprak ◽  
Meltem Kurt Yuksel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Optimal Response ◽  
Generic Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Generic Groups ◽  
Support Research

Introduction:Generic imatinib formulations are increasingly being used as more affordable alternatives worldwide and a few studies have evaluated the safety and efficacy of these formulations prospectively. We have retrospectively analyzed our CML cohort in terms of first line treatment of Glivec versus generic imatinib. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of generic imatinib products in chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia as first line treatment. Methods:We have retrospectively analyzed our CML cohort from January 2000 to December 2018 treated with either Glivec or one of generic imatinib formulations. All of our patients (with 1 exception) were initiated imatinib in chronic phase in less than 56 days from diagnosis. All of our patients were followed in accordance with European Leukemia Net (ELN) 2013 recommendations and national hematology association CML guidelines and response definitions were applied according to ELN 2013 criteria. Event free survival (EFS) was defined as the time between treatment initiation and either loss of hematological response, progression to accelerated phase (AP) or blastic phase (BP), or death from any cause. Progression free survival was defined as the time between treatment initiation and transformation to AP, BP or death while on imatinib. For statistical analyses SPSS version 21.0 was used. All p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results:A total of 192 patients were analyzed comparing 102 (53.1 %) patients on Glivec with 90 patients on (476.9 %) generic formulations. 99 (51.6 %) were female patients. The median age of our population was median 46 years (14-88 years) for Glivec and median 51 years (19-79 years) for generic group (p=0.01). Risk stratifications according to Sokal, Hasford and ELTS scores were run for both Glivec and generic formulation groups. Most of the patients had low risk according to Sokal (137, 71.4%) and Hasford (116, 60.4 %) but intermediate risk according to ELTS (113, 58.9 %) scoring systems. There was no statistically significant difference in the gender distribution, Sokal, Hasford, ELTS scores and ECOG between the two groups. The median time to initiate imatinib treatment was 23.5 (1- 156) days for Glivec group and 13 (1- 51) days generic group (p< 0.05). But the late onset of the treatment was not associated with treatment failure or death. The median follow up was 119.8 (3.7- 250.5) months for Glivec group and 43.6 (2- 150) months for generic groups, respectively (p< 0.05). This difference might be explained by the fact that Glivec has been on the market for about two decades. Similar rates of grade> 2 hematological and non- hematological toxicity were seen in Glivec (4.9 %) and generic groups (3.3 %), respectively (p> 0.05). The rates of treatment failure at 3 months were significantly higher in generic formulation (6.7 %) group than Glivec (2.9 %) group (p< 0.05). Also, the rates of treatment failure at 6 months were significantly higher in generic formulation (3.3 %) group than Glivec (0.9 %) group (p< 0.05). Optimal molecular response rate at 3 months was 76.5 % (n=78) for Glivec and 32.2 % (n=29) for generic groups (p< 0.001). Also, optimal molecular response rate at 6 months was 69.6 % (n=71) for Glivec and 45.6 % (n=41) for generic groups (p= 0.01). Median EFS was found significantly higher for Glivec group compared to generic group (168 mos (95% CI: 159-177 mos) vs 74.6 mos (95% CI: 56-93); p<0.001) (Figure). Conclusion: We found that complete hematological response rates at 3 and 6 months were similar in both groups, but in early phase of treatment the optimal response rates of Glivec group was statistical significantly higher than generic group. Generic group presented with a lower rate of optimal response at 3 months but 13.4 % improvement in optimal response rates was observed at six months. No significant difference in safety concerns was observed between the groups. We recommend that these results from single center should be clarified in a prospective, randomized study including larger population. Figure Disclosures Özcan: AbbVie: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; BMS: Other: Travel support; Jazz: Other: Travel support; Sanofi: Other: Travel support; Abdi Ibrahim: Other: Travel support; Janssen: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding, Travel support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Archigen: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Beksac:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Five-Year Outcomes of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Prostate Cancer-The Largest Experience in China

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xianzhi Zhao ◽  
Yusheng Ye ◽  
Haiyan Yu ◽  
Lingong Jiang ◽  
Chao Cheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
Gu Toxicity ◽  
Biochemical Progression ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Very High

Abstract Objective To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of SBRT for localized prostate cancer (PCa). Moreover, it is the largest-to-date pilot study to report 5-year outcomes of SBRT for localized PCa from China. Methods In this retrospective study, 133 PCa patients in our center were treated by SBRT with CyberKnife (Accuray) from October 2012 to July 2019. Follow-up was performed every 3 months for evaluations of efficacy and toxicity. Biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) and toxicities were assessed using the Phoenix definition and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v.5.0 respectively. Factors predictive of bPFS were identified with COX regression analysis. Results 133 patients (10 low-, 21 favorable intermediate-, 31 unfavorable intermediate-, 45 high-, and 26 very high risk cases on the basis of the NCCN risk classification) with a median age of 76 years (range: 54–87 years) received SBRT. The median dose was 36.25Gy (range: 34-37.5Gy) in 5 fractions. Median follow-up time was 57.7 months (3.5–97.2 months). The overall 5-year bPFS rate was 83.6% for all patients. The 5-year bPFS rate of patients with low-, favorable intermediate-, unfavorable intermediate-, high-, and very high risk PCa was 87.5%, 95.2%, 90.5%, 86.3%, and 61.6% respectively. Urinary symptoms were all alleviated after SBRT. All the patients tolerated SBRT with only 1 (0.8%) and 1 (0.8%) patient reporting grade-3 acute and late genitourinary (GU) toxicity, respectively. There were no grade 4 toxicities. Gleason score (P < 0.001, HR = 7.483, 95%CI: 2.686–20.846) was the independent predictor of bPFS rate after multivariate analysis Conclusion SBRT is an efficient and safe treatment modality for localized PCa with high 5-year bPFS rates and acceptable toxicities.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of combined androgen blockade with antiandrogen for advanced prostate cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Yang ◽  
R. Chen ◽  
T. Sun ◽  
L. Zhao ◽  
F. Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
First Line ◽  
Combined Androgen Blockade ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Androgen Blockade

Background Combined androgen blockade (cab) is a promising treatment modality for prostate cancer (pca). In the present meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of first-line cab using an antiandrogen (aa) with castration monotherapy in patients with advanced pca.Methods PubMed, embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials (rcts) published through 12 December 2016. Hazard ratios (hrs) with 95% confidence intervals (cis) were determined for primary outcomes: overall survival (os) and progression-free survival (pfs). Subgroup analyses were performed for Western compared with Eastern patients and use of a nonsteroidal aa (nsaa) compared with a steroidal aa (saa).Results Compared with castration monotherapy, cab using an aa was associated with significantly improved os (n = 14; hr: 0.90; 95% ci: 0.84 to 0.97; p = 0.003) and pfs (n = 13; hr: 0.89; 95% ci: 0.80 to 1.00; p = 0.04). No significant difference in os (p = 0.71) and pfs (p = 0.49) was observed between the Western and Eastern patients. Compared with castration monotherapy, cab using a nsaa was associated with significantly improved os (hr: 0.88; 95% ci: 0.82 to 0.95; p = 0.0009) and pfs (hr: 0.85; 95% ci: 0.73 to 0.98; p = 0.007)—a result that was not achieved with cab using a saa. The safety profiles of cab and monotherapy were similar in terms of adverse events, including hot flushes, impotence, and grade 3 or 4 events, with the exception of risk of diarrhea and liver dysfunction or elevation in liver enzymes, which were statistically greater with cab using an aa.Conclusions Compared with castration monotherapy, first-line cab therapy with an aa, especially a nsaa, resulted in significantly improved os and pfs, and had an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced pca.

124Impact of intimal tracking for recanalization of CTO lesions on long-term clinical outcomes

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Kano ◽  
K Nasu ◽  
M Habara ◽  
T Shimura ◽  
M Yamamoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Target Lesion ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Total Occlusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background For recanalization of coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) lesions, subintimal guidewire tracking in both antegrade and retrograde approaches are commonly used. Purpose This study aimed to assess the impact of subintimal tracking on long-term clinical outcomes after recanalization of CTO lesions. Methods Between January 2009 and December 2016, 474 CTO lesions (434patients) were successfully recanalized in our center. After guidewire crossing in a CTO lesion, those lesions were divided into intimal tracking group (84.6%, n=401) and subintimal tracking group (15.4%, n=73) according to intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) findings. Long-term clinical outcomes including death, target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR) were compared between the two groups. In addition, the rate of re-occlusion after successful revascularization was also evaluated. Results The median follow-up period was 4.7 years (interquartile range, 2.8–6.1). There was no significant difference of the rate of cardiac death between the two groups (intimal tracking vs. subintimal tracking: 7.0% vs. 4.1%; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 2.00; p=0.41), TLR (14.3% vs. 16.2%; hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.71 to 2.53; p=0.37), and TVR (17.5% vs. 20.3%; hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.72 to 2.23; p=0.42). However, the rate of re-occlusion was significantly higher in the subintimal tracking group than intimal tracking group at 3-years re-occlusion (4.2% vs. 14.5%; log-rank test, p=0.002, Figure). In the multivariate COX regression, subintimal guidewire tracking was an independent predictor of re-occlusion after CTO recanalization (HR: 5.40; 95% CI: 2.11–13.80; p<0.001). Figure 1 Conclusions Subintimal guidewire tracking for recanalization of coronary CTO was associated with significantly higher incidence of target lesion re-occlusion during long-term follow-up period.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document