Long-Term Outcome of Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients Treated with Nilotinib Front-Line

Nilotinib (NIL) 600 mg daily has demonstrated its superiority over Imatinib 400 mg daily in terms of response and incidence of deep molecular response in the front-line chronic phase (CP) CML setting. In this observational study we have retrospectively analyzed the outcome of in- and out-study 202 patients (pts) treated in this setting with NIL 600 mg front-line, in "real-life" conditions. All pts with newly diagnosed adult CP-CML receiving NIL 300 mg BID alone front-line between 10/2007 and 06/2020, were eligible for this study. Data were retrospectively collected according to the current French regulations with pts' information. All pts were assessed and followed according to ELN recommendations 2003, 2006, and 2009 along treatment and to the recommendations from the French group of CML (D. Rea et al., Cancer 2018) in case of TFR. In this regard, a TKI was resumed if loss of MMR. All BCR-ABL1 assessments were performed in the 3 reference laboratories, standardised and expressed in % (IS) with ≥32,000 copies of ABL1 as control. The primary endpoints were the rate of molecular responses in the long-term and the (vascular) safety of Nilotinib. Secondary endpoints were the kinetics of molecular response, survival and safety of Nilotinib. Survival (OS, PFS & EFS) was defined according to ELN (J. Guilhot et al. Blood 2012). Two hundred and two patients were reported with 44% females and 56% males with a median age at diagnosis of 50.4 (17.5-83) years, and 26% of them had cardiovascular risk factors at onset (tobacco abuse 11%, hypercholesterolemia 9.3%, diabetes 1.45%, none with past history of cardiovascular events [CVE]). ELTS scores were high in 14%, intermediate in 31% and low in 55% of pts. Twenty-four (12%) pts harboured additional chromosomal abnormalities at diagnosis. The median follow-up after NIL initiation was 61.5 (1-147.5) months. At last follow-up 113 pts (55%) are not on NIL anymore for toxicities, TFR or resistance reasons. Twenty-eight (14%) pts present an arterial event on NIL (18% PAOD, 14% angina pectoralis, 7% myocardial infarction, 14% stroke, 47% others such as atrial fibrillation, cardiomyopathy...), that occurred after a median of 26 (0.6-98.5) months on NIL. Forty-six (22.5%) pts reached TFR criteria and stopped NIL after a median of 58.5 (27-126) months. The cumulative incidence (CI) rates of MMR at 1, 2 and 5 years were 64 (57-71)%, 79.4 (75.45-83.35)% and 95 (92-98.5)% respectively. For MR4, those were 35.5 (29-42)%, 60 (52-67)% and 82 (74.5-89)% respectively; and for MR4.5, were 14 (9-19)%, 31 (24-28)% and 62 (54-70.5)% respectively. The CI of sustained MR4.5 (i. e. patients eligible for TFR: MR4.5 ≥2 years) was observed in 30 (23-37)% at 3 years, 45.5 (36-55)% at 5 years and 52.5 (41.5-64)% at 6 years (Figure). The CI of patients entering TFR was 16.75 (10.5-23)% at 5 years and 51.94 (37.31-66.57)% at 10 years with a survival without MMR loss of 70.7 (58- 86)% at 1 year and 65.26 (50.6-84)% at 5 years. Nine (4.5%) pts progressed towards accelerated phase (4 pts) or BC (2 lymphoid, 3 myeloid) responsible for 5 deaths at latest follow-up. Among NIL resistant patients screened, 15 were harbouring ABL1 mutations (5 Y253H, 3 E255K, 3 T315I, 1 M244V, 1 G250E, 1 F359V, 1 V299L). Overall, 10 patients died (5 from CML, 5 from unrelated causes). The probability of OS was 95.75 [95%CI: 92.9-98.7]% at 2 years and 94.8 [91.5-98.3]% at 5 years, for PFS it was 94.92 [91.7-98.2]% at 2 years and 89.5 [84.7-94.6]% at 5 years, and EFS it was 78 [72.3-84]% at 2 years and 60.25 [53.3-68.1]% at 5 years. Regarding sustained MR4.5, univariate analysis showed that female gender (HR=2.46 [1.50-4.02], p<0.001) and low ELTS (HR=0.41 [0.22-0.76], p<0.004) had a significant impact, while multivariate analysis confirmed the role of these 2 factors (HR=2.31 [1.41- 3.79], p=0.001 and HR= 0.52 [0.30- 0.90], p=0.02) in addition to high ELTS (HR= 0.28 [0.14- 0.58], p<0.001). Univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated that only age impacted on the CI of CVE (HR= 1.07 [1.04-1.10], p<0.001, and HR=1.07 [1.04-1.10], p<0.001). NIL first-line efficiently limits progression of newly diagnosed CP-CML patients and provides high rates of sustained MR4.5, allowing TFR in a substantial proportion of pts. However, the onset of arterial occlusive events, especially in the elderly is a matter of concern in the choice of this compound at treatment initiation. Disclosures Nicolini: Incyte: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sun Pharma Ltd: Consultancy. Cony-Makhoul:BMS: Speakers Bureau; Incyte Biosciences: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Dulucq:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Cayuela:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Rea:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: 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. Mahon:ARIAD: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria. Etienne:Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Frontline Treatment With Imatinib Mesylate in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients in Early Chronic Phase: a Very Long-Term Analysis by the GIMEMA CML Working Party

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.258.258 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 258-258 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Fausto Castagnetti ◽

Gabriele Gugliotta ◽

Massimo Breccia ◽

Giorgina Specchia ◽

Tamara Intermesoli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Working Party ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Term Outcome ◽

Long Term Outcome ◽

Free Survival

Abstract Background The chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) therapeutic scenario has been enriched by the approval of second generation TKIs as frontline treatment of early chronic phase (ECP) patients, but imatinib mesylate (IM) still represents the standard for many patients. The long term outcome is extremely important to assess the treatment efficacy and to decide on the allocation of resources. The phase 3 trials comparing second generation TKIs versus standard-dose IM have not still demonstrated a clear improvement in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival. In the IRIS trial, at 8 year, 55% of patients were still on IM and the overall survival (OS) was 85%. Other published reports have shorter follow-up. Aims and Methods To assess the very long-term outcome of CML patients treated frontline with IM, we analyzed 559 patients enrolled within 3 multicentric prospective studies conducted by the GIMEMA CML Working Party (NCT00514488, NCT00510926, observational trial CML023). Definitions: major molecular response (MMR), BCR-ABLIS ratio <0.1%; deep molecular response (MR4.0), detectable disease ≤ 0.01% BCR-ABLIS or undetectable disease with ≥10,000 ABL transcripts; progression, transformation to accelerated or blastic phase; failure, according to 2013 ELN criteria; event, treatment discontinuation for any reason or lost to follow-up. Information on survival and progression were regularly collected. All deaths, at any time and for any reason, were included. All the analysis have been made according to the intention-to-treat principle. Results Baseline demographics characteristics: median age: 52 years (extremes 18-84 years); male sex: 60%; high Sokal, high Euro and high EUTOS scores: 22%, 7% and 7%, respectively; clonal chromosomal abnormalities (CCA) in Ph+ cells: 4% (not evaluable in 32% of patients for insufficient number of metaphases); e13a2 BCR-ABL transcript: 36%. Median follow-up: 76 (7-99) months. The cumulative incidence of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), MMR and MR4 was 88%, 85% and 61%, respectively. The median time to CCyR, MMR and MR4 was 6, 7 and 42 months, respectively. Patients with high Sokal, high Euro and high EUTOS scores had significantly lower overall estimated probability of CCyR and MMR with respect to low and intermediate risk patients. A high Sokal score also predicted a significantly inferior probability of MR4; patients with high Euro and high EUTOS score had lower overall estimated probability of MR4, but the difference were not statistically significant. The reasons for IM discontinuation were: lack of efficacy (19%), toxicity or death (9%), withdrawal of informed consent (3%); 4% of patients were lost to follow-up. The 8-year event-free survival (EFS), failure-free survival (FFS), progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were 55% (95% CI: 51-60%), 66% (95% CI: 61-70%), 84% (95% CI: 78-89%) and 85% (95% CI: 79-90%), respectively. A high Sokal and a high Euro scores were able to identify patients with significantly lower probability of EFS, FFS, PFS and OS with respect to the other patients. High EUTOS score patients had significantly poorer EFS and FFS, but PFS and OS differences were not significant. Age, performance status and e13a2 transcript resulted independent prognostic factors on PFS and OS. Conclusions Until now, the available data on the very long-term outcome of newly diagnosed chronic phase CML patients treated frontline with imatinib are limited to a company sponsored study (IRIS study). The GIMEMA CML Working Party provided an unbiased overview of the long-term imatinib therapeutic effects in a multicentric nationwide experience. These results should be taken into consideration to make treatment decision concerning the choice of the first line TKI, particularly in low risk patients. Acknowledgments University of Bologna, BolognaAIL, COFIN, Fondazione Carisbo. Disclosures: Castagnetti: Novartis Farma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gugliotta:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Abruzzese:BMS, Novartis: Consultancy. Soverini:Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; ARIAD: Consultancy. Cavo:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Imatinib as Second-Line Therapy, Ameliorates or Maintains Molecular Responses Obtained with Ponatinib First-Line in Chronic Phase CML Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.1894.1894 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 1894-1894

Author(s):

Franck E. Nicolini ◽

Gaelle Fossard ◽

Valerie Coiteux ◽

Viviane Dubruille ◽

Vincent Alcazer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Front Line ◽

First Line ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Line Therapy ◽

Line Setting

Abstract Background & aims The third generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) Ponatinib demonstrates extremely potent BCR-ABL inhibitory activity in CML patients in chronic or advanced phase, resistant to 1, 2 or 3 prior TKI (Cortes NEJM, 2013) and it seemed interesting to test this agent in the front-line setting of chronic phase patients. The EPIC trial was a phase III trial set up to compare the molecular outcomes of Imatinib 400 (IM400) versus Ponatinib 45 mg daily at one year. However, this trial has been abrogated at early stages by the FDA despite the impressive molecular efficacy of Ponatinib (Lipton, Lancet Oncol 2016) because of unexpected and unacceptable rates of arterial thrombotic events that occurred in another trial (PACE). A majority of patients in the Ponatinib arm were switched towards IM400, but their outcome is not known. The aim of this study was to analyse the general and molecular outcomes of such patients in our country. Methods This is an observational study following the rules and regulations of these studies in our country. Data were monitored and retrospectively collected in the 5 centers involved in the EPIC trial. Molecular analyses were performed locally during ponatinib exposure (in parallel with centralised assessments) and during IM treatment thereafter. Only local results, expressed in % BCR-ABL (IS), were used in this analysis, and all respective molecular biology laboratories have been involved in the Eutos/ELN BCR-ABL accreditation system. Results Thirteen patients were analysed, 9 males and 4 females, with a median age of 58.5 (range 19.5-69) years at chronic phase CML diagnosis. Sokal scores were low for 4, intermediate for 7, high for 2 patients, Euro score was low for 7, intermediate for 5 and high for 1, Eutos LTS score was low for 10, intermediate for 2 and high for 1. Patients were harbouring a "conventional" Philadelphia chromosome without clonal evolution (20-28 metaphases analysed/patient) at diagnosis. All patients were harbouring a Major BCR-ABL transcript. The median BCR-ABL transcript level was 109 (range 35-440) % at diagnosis. Blood pressure was normal in all patients at diagnosis except one. Ponatinib was initiated in all patients at 45 mg daily after a median of 1.5 (range 0.8-2.75) months after diagnosis. Median Ponatinib duration was 4 (range 0.5-6.3) months. Complete Hematologic Response was obtained in 0.98 (range 0.5-1) month in all patients. At 3 months, median BCR-ABL ratio was 0.19 (range 0.008-2.74) %, all patients being in early molecular response (EMR) and 4 patients being already in major molecular response (MMR). Median Ponatinib dose at cessation was 45 (range 0-45) mg daily. IM was started at 400 mg daily in all patients after a median of 1 (range 1-35) day after Ponatinib cessation and after a median of 4 (range 0.54-6.54) months after Ponatinib initiation. The median BCR-ABL transcripts at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36 and 42 months of Ponatinib (i.e. after a median time of 7, 10, 16, 22, 28, 34, 40 and 46 months of IM) were 0.22 (range 0.01-27)%, 0.08 (0.005-8.99)%, 0.08 (0.01-2.01)%, 0.1 (0.003-1.9)%, 0.03 (0.001-1.61)%, 0.01 (<0.001-0.21)%, 0.01 (0.001-0.21) and 0.01 (0.001-0.02) respectively (see figure 1). On the 10 evaluable patients for molecular analyses, at Ponatinib cessation 40% of patients were >MMR, 40% of patients in MMR, 20% in MR4. At last follow-up, on IM400 10% of patients were in >MMR, 40% in MMR, 20% in MR4, 10% in MR4.5 and 20% in MR5, i. e. 50% in deep molecular response. At last follow-up, all patients were alive, still on IM400 daily for 32 (27.75-37.4) months, except 4 [1 grade 3 asthenia (now on Dasatinib), 2 molecular failure (now on Dasatinib and Bosutinib)], 1 free of treatment]. None of the patients progressed towards advanced phases to date. No thrombotic events occurred in any of the patients on Ponatinib. Three patients developed hypertension on Ponatinib requiring treatment, still ongoing at last follow-up in all. Conclusion The use of Imatinib after Ponatinib first-line therapy for chronic phase CML patients is safe. Despite a significant tyrosine kinase inhibition inferior activity in vitro, it allows the maintenance or the improvement of molecular responses throughout time and serves as a consolidation therapy. These data might pave the way for the design of future clinical trials using Ponatinib in the front-line setting in conjunction with Ponatinib dose reduction. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Nicolini: Ariad, BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Coiteux:Novartis, BMS, ARIAD: Speakers Bureau. Mouchel:Ariad/Incyte: Employment. Mahon:BMS: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria. Etienne:novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Guerci:Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ARIAD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.207.207 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 207-207 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

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.

Download Full-text

ENESTnd Update: Nilotinib (NIL) Vs Imatinib (IM) In Patients (pts) With Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia In Chronic Phase (CML-CP) and The Impact Of Early Molecular Response (EMR) and Sokal Risk At Diagnosis On Long-Term Outcomes

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.92.92 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 92-92 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

Giuseppe Saglio ◽

Andreas Hochhaus ◽

Timothy P. Hughes ◽

Richard E. Clark ◽

Hirohisa Nakamae ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Eligibility Criterion ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Long Term Outcomes ◽

Vascular Events ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

The Impact

Abstract Introduction Frontline NIL continues to show benefit over IM in pts with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) CML-CP, with higher rates of major molecular response (MMR; BCR-ABLIS ≤ 0.1%) and MR4.5 (BCR-ABLIS ≤ 0.0032%), lower rates of progression to accelerated phase (AP)/blast crisis (BC) and fewer new BCR-ABL mutations on treatment in the Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials–Newly Diagnosed Pts (ENESTnd) trial. Here, we report data with a minimum follow-up (f/u) of 4 y; updated data based on 5 y of f/u will be presented. Methods Adults with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP (N = 846) were randomized to NIL 300 mg twice daily (BID; n = 282), NIL 400 mg BID (n = 281), or IM 400 mg once daily (QD; n = 283). Progression and overall survival (OS) events were collected prospectively during study f/u, including after discontinuation of study treatment. Efficacy in the NIL 300 mg BID and IM arms was evaluated based on achievement of EMR (BCR-ABLIS ≤ 10% at 3 mo). Results At 4 y, ≥ 87% of pts remained on study in each arm and 57%-69% remained on core treatment (Table). Rates of MMR and MR4.5 by 4 y were significantly higher with NIL vs IM. Significantly fewer pts progressed to AP/BC on NIL vs IM (on core treatment: 0.7%, 1.1%, and 4.2%; on study: 3.2%, 2.1%, and 6.7% [NIL 300 mg BID, NIL 400 mg BID, and IM arms, respectively]). Of 17 pts across the 3 arms who progressed on core treatment, 11 (65%) had never achieved complete cytogenetic response and none had achieved MR4.5. Fewer mutations have emerged in the NIL arms vs the IM arm; in y 4, mutations emerged in 2 pts (1 pt with T315I on NIL 300 mg BID; 1 pt with F317L on IM). More pts achieved EMR in the NIL 300 mg BID arm vs the IM arm (91% vs 67%). Pts with EMR had significantly higher rates of progression-free survival (PFS) and OS at 4 y vs pts with BCR-ABL > 10% at 3 mo. Among pts with BCR-ABL > 10% at 3 mo, more progressions to AP/BC occurred in the IM arm (n = 14) vs the NIL 300 mg BID arm (n = 2); half of these pts progressed between 3 and 6 mo. In pts with intermediate or high Sokal risk, PFS and OS at 4 y were higher in both NIL arms vs the IM arm. No new safety signals were detected. Selected cardiac and vascular events were more common on NIL vs IM (by 4 y, peripheral arterial occlusive disease [PAOD] in 4 [1.4%], 5 [1.8%], and 0 pts; ischemic heart disease [IHD] in 11 [3.9%], 14 [5.1%,] and 3 [1.1%] pts; and ischemic cerebrovascular events in 3 [1.1%], 5 [1.8%], and 1 [0.4%] pts in the NIL 300 mg BID, NIL 400 mg BID, and IM arms, respectively). In the NIL 300 mg BID arm, 2 of 11 IHD events occurred between 3 and 4 y (all 4 PAOD events occurred in the first 2 y). In the NIL 400 mg BID arm, 2 of 5 PAOD events and 3 of 14 IHD events occurred between 3 and 4 y. Most pts (7 of 9) with a PAOD event on NIL were at high risk due to a combination of baseline risk factors. Conclusions NIL, a standard-of-care frontline therapy option for newly diagnosed CML-CP pts, affords superior efficacy compared with IM, including higher rates of EMR (which is associated with improved long-term outcomes), higher rates of MR4.5 (a key eligibility criterion for many studies of treatment-free remission), and a lower risk of disease progression. NIL continues to show good tolerability with long-term f/u. While selected cardiac and vascular events (including PAOD) are slightly more frequent on NIL vs IM, no increase in annual incidence of these events over time has been observed. Disclosures: Saglio: ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hochhaus:Ariad: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Hughes:Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; CSL: Research Funding. Clark:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Nakamae:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau, travel/ accomodations/ meeting expenses Other. Kim:BMS, Novartis,IL-Yang: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Etienne:Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flinn:Novartis: Research Funding. Lipton:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Equity Ownership, 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. Moiraghi:Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Fan:Novartis: Employment. Menssen:Novartis: Employment. Kantarjian:Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding. Larson:Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Pegylated Interferon-Alpha 2a in Combination with Nilotinib As First-Line Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Chronic Phase Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (Nilopeg trial). Four-Year Follow-up Results

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.1578.1578 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 1578-1578 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Franck E. Nicolini ◽

Gabriel Etienne ◽

Viviane Dubruille ◽

Lydia Roy ◽

Françoise Huguet ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Cumulative Incidence ◽

Research Funding ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Pegylated Interferon ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Molecular Responses ◽

Log Reduction

Abstract Background & aims In the Nilopeg trial (EudraCT 2010-019786-28), we have previously demonstrated that the combination of nilotinib (Tasigna® Novartis), a second generation inihibitor (TKI2), combined to pegylated interferon-alpha 2a (Peg-IFN, Pegasys®, Roche) in de novo chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) patients is able to induce high rates of molecular responses with an acceptable additional toxicity (F. E. Nicolini et al. Lancet Haematology 2015) within 24 months of follow-up. We report here the ≥4-year follow-up of such patients for toxicity and efficacy. Methods In a phase 2 study, newly diagnosed CP-CML patients were assigned to a priming strategy by Peg-IFN (± HU) for a month at 90 mg/wk, prior to a combination of nilotinib 300 mg BID + Peg-IFN 45 micro.g/wk for ≥ 1 year, maximum 2 years. After 2 years nilotinib was continued alone. The primary endpoint was the rate of confirmed molecular response 4.5 (MR4.5) by 1 year. Molecular assessments were centralised for all patients and expressed as BCR-ABLIS in % for 2 years and then performed in each center [all expressed in % on the international scale (IS)]. All data presented here are in intention-to-treat. Events were defined as death, progression to AP or BC, failure on nilotinib or nilotinib treatment discontinuation for any cause excluding treatment-free remission (TFR). Results Fourty-two patients were enrolled in this trial (one withdrawn its consent prior to treatment initiation), and the median follow-up is now 50.7 (47.8-52.8) months. Sokal and Euro scores were high for 12% and 2%, intermediate for 49% and 55% and low for 39% and 43% of the patients respectively. The median age at treatment initiation was 53 (23-85) years, 2 patients had a masked Philadelphia chromosome, 3 a variant form, and 1 additional chromosomal abnormalities, all patients had "major" BCR-ABL1 transcripts. The rates of Complete Cytogenetic Responses (CCyR) at "6", and "12" months of combination (i. e. at 5 and 11 months of TKI2) were 71%, and 100% respectively. Eighty seven percent of patients had a BCR-ABLIS ≤10% at M3 (i. e. after 2 months TKI). The rates of molecular responses respectively at 12, 24, 36 and 48 months were 76%, 78%, 83%, 73% for MMR, 51%, 58.5%, 66%, 58.5% for 4 log reduction (MR4), 17%, 34%, 34%, 44% for 4.5 log reduction (MR4.5), 12%, 32%, 29%, 41.5% for ≥5 log reduction (MR5), shown as cumulative incidence curves for MR4.5 in figure 1. The median doses of Peg-IFN delivered to the patients during the first year were 45 (0-45) micro.g/wk, and for nilotinib 600 (300-600) mg daily. Interestingly, logistic regression analysis adjusted on MR4.5 responses showed a significant relationship with the mean doses of Peg-IFN delivered to the patients at 12 months (p=0.003, OR = 1.09 [1.03-1.16]), 24 months (p=0.005, OR = 1.08 [1.02-1.14]) and 48 months (p=0.024, OR = 1.09 [1.01-1.17], but not with the mean doses of nilotinib [p=0.84, OR = 0.99 [0.99-1.01], p=0.087, OR = 1 [0.99-1.01], and p=0.88, OR = 1 [0.99-1.01] respectively. Eight patients (19.5%) were in TFR for a median of 6.8 (0.5-9.5) months after 2-year consecutive MR4.5, and none lost MMR yet at last follow-up. One patient died of progression (unmutated myeloid blast crisis at M6, who relapsed after unrelated allogeneic stem cell transplantation). There was no additional grade 3-4 hematologic or biochemical toxicities occurring after 24 months. At last follow-up 10 patients switched for another TKI (2 for dasatinib, 5 for imatinib, and 3 for imatinib followed by dasatinib), for unsufficient cytogenetic or molecular response (2 patients) or for toxicity (7 patients). Overall, 4 patients presented some cardio-vascular events 3 coronary stenoses, one brain stroke). Conclusion Despite additional initial toxicities Peg-IFN priming strategy, followed by the combination of nilotinib and Peg-IFN during the first year induces very high rates of durable deep molecular responses (MR4 and MR4.5) at later time-points, offering TFR for number of patients. To date, no emerging severe adverse events occurred. However, to confirm these promising results, a randomised phase III study testing nilotinib versus nilotinib + Peg-IFN is absolutely warranted and in progress. Figure 1. Cumulative incidence of MR4.5 Figure 1. Cumulative incidence of MR4.5 Disclosures Nicolini: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; 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. Etienne:ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress Travel/Accomodations, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Roy:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Huguet:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Legros:ARIAD: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Giraudier:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Coiteux:BMS: Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Guerci-Bresler:ARIAD: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Speakers Bureau. Rea:Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Amé:BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Cony-Makhoul:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Gardembas:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Hermet:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Rousselot:Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Mahon:ARIAD: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Beneficial Effects of Cytogenetic and Molecular Response on Long-Term Outcome in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CML-CP) Treated with Imatinib (IM): Update from the IRIS Study.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v106.11.166.166 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 106 (11) ◽

pp. 166-166 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Bengt Simonsson ◽

Keyword(s):

Blast Crisis ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Risk Groups ◽

Low Risk ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Long Term Outcome ◽

Increased Risk

Abstract Background: IM was proven to be superior to IFN+Ara-C for newly diagnosed pts with CML-CP (O’Brien et al, NEJM 2003). At 42-months of follow-up, 75% of the 553 pts randomized to IM remain on treatment. Of the 553 pts randomized to IFN+Ara-C only 4% are still on IFN+Ara-C. This update analysis is focused on IM pts. Methods: Evaluation included complete hematologic response (CHR), major/complete cytogenetic response (MCyR/CCyR) - defined as 0-35% Ph+ and 0% Ph+ metaphases respectively, major molecular response (MMR) - defined as ≥3 log reduction of bcr-abl transcripts from the standardized baseline, time to progression - defined as loss of CHR/MCyR or evolution to accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC) or death due to any cause, time to AP/BC - defined as evolution to AP/BC or death due to CML, and overall survival. Results: With an average duration of 38 months of IM treatment, the best observed rates of CHR, MCyR and CCyR are 96%, 88% and 81%, respectively. Although the majority of MCyRs were achieved within the first 3 to 9 months, some pts achieved a MCyR and some even a CCyR after more than one year of treatment (Figure 1). The estimated MMR rate at 12 months is 40%. Figure 1 - Observed CHR, MCyR and CCyR during treatment with IM Figure 1 -. Observed CHR, MCyR and CCyR during treatment with IM The estimated progression-free rate at 42 months is 84%; additionally 94% are estimated free of progression to AP/BC (97% of the pts with CCyR and 73% of the pts without CCyR during study, p<0.001). The risk of relapse remains low with no apparent increased risk over time. The yearly hazard for progression to AP/BC is about 2% in each of the 4 years. The overall estimated survival at 42 months is 91% (considering all deaths). The estimated survival was lowest in pts with high risk Sokal score (84%) as compared to 91% in the intermediate risk pts and 94% in the low risk pts (p<0.001). Similarly, the best observed CCyR in the high, intermediate, and low risk groups were 69%, 80% and 88% respectively (p=0.002). In the subset of pts with CCyR the estimated survival at 42 months was 92%, 93% and 97% in the high to low risk groups (p=0.30), indicating that once pts achieve a CCyR, their survival is not significantly different between the Sokal risk groups. Of the 509 pts who were still on treatment at 12 months and had achieved a MCyR by then (n=436), the rate without progression to AP/BC at 42 months was 97% whereas it was only 83% for the 73 pts who did not achieve a MCyR at 12 months (p<0.001). The estimated survival rates at 42 months were 95% and 83% in these two response groups, respectively (p<0.001). Furthermore, for pts who had achieved a MMR at 12 months, the probability of remaining free from progression to AP/BC was 100% at 42 months compared to 95% for pts in CCyR but not in MMR, and 91% for pts not in CCyR at 12 months (p=0.0013). Conclusions: The follow-up confirms the beneficial effect of cytogenetic and molecular responses on long-term outcomes with IM. These results will be further updated using data cut-off of 31-July 2005 to reflect additional 12-months of data (i.e., 54-month follow-up).

Download Full-text

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 ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.452.452 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 452-452 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

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.

Download Full-text

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 ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.1676.1676 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 1676-1676 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

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.

Download Full-text

Rituximab Combined With Three Cycles Of High Dose Dexamethasone Provides a Long Term Response Rate Similar To That Of Splenectomy In Patients With Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP) Of Duration Less Than 2 Years

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.2310.2310 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 2310-2310 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

Christina S Lee ◽

Allison Imahiyerobo ◽

Micha Thompson ◽

Marina Izak Karaev ◽

Waleed Ghanima ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Plasma Cells ◽

Response Rate ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Platelet Counts ◽

Best Response

Abstract Background Adults with newly-diagnosed and persistent ITP usually respond to steroid based treatments such as prednisone but relapse with tapering. One 4-day cycle of Dexamethasone (dex) at 40 mg/day in newly diagnosed ITP resulted in a lasting effect in 50% of patients (pts) in 1 study. An Italian study showed that 3 cycles of dex are better than 1 cycle. Approximately 50% of pts with chronic ITP experience a complete or partial response (CR & PR) to rituximab, yet only 20% of pts have a lasting, unmaintained response after 3 years. Mechanistically, rituximab (which depletes B cells but not plasma cells) and dexamethasone (which may be the most potent anti-plasma cell agent) are a logical combination in treatment of antibody-mediated diseases such as ITP. In 2 studies of newly-diagnosed pts, dex 40mg/day x 4 followed by rituximab was more effective than dex alone (one study added more dex half way through). In our pilot study, pts at Weill Cornell Medical College (WCMC) with all stages of ITP were treated with a combination of rituximab (R) and usually 3 cycles of dex. The outcome of this combination was retrospectively analyzed. Methods Combination of standard-dose rituximab (weekly x 4) and usually 3 4-day cycles of 28mg/m2 (max. 40mg) dex at 2-week intervals (R+3Dex) was explored in 67 pediatric and adult pts with ITP at WCMC. Patients were monitored with CBCs obtained weekly and then at less frequent intervals if a response was achieved. Best response (after 8 weeks to avoid transient effects of dex) was determined. Patients were categorized as CR (platelet count≥100x109/L) or PR (50-100x109/L). Relapse was defined as either two consecutive platelet counts <50x109/L and/or need for additional therapy. The duration of response was calculated from date of first rituximab administration to relapse or latest follow-up as of July 31st 2013. Results Overall, 50 of 67 pts treated with R+3Dex achieved a best response of either a CR (n=43) or a PR (n=7) at 8 weeks or later from start of therapy for an overall response rate of 75%. Seventy-three percent of pts received R+3Dex; variations were primarily in the timing and amount of dex given. Fifteen responders, 9 CRs and 6 PRs, relapsed at a median of 9 months. Seventy percent of the responders (or 52% of all pts treated) maintain a continuous response with platelet counts ≥ 50 x 109/L as of their last visit at a median f/u of 20 months. Kaplan Meier Analysis estimates 44% of all pts treated (Figure) and 59% of responders (Figure) maintained a best response without relapse at 67 months after initiating treatment. If only those with ITP ≤ 24 months are included, the estimated long term response rate is 59% (p=0.0017) versus only 19% for those with a duration of ITP > 24 months (Figure). Of 36 responding children and adults who had ITP ≤ 24 months, 29 continued to respond as of last follow up. Adults initially responded better than children (p=0.0019) but the long-term responses were not different (Figure). Pts achieving a CR had longer response than those achieving a PR. Adverse events related to R+Dex were usually mild-moderate, although 3 pts had serum sickness and 2 had transient colitis. IgG levels fell to below the lower limit of normal for age in 14 of 67 pts, 10 of whom had their IgG levels return to normal. In 6 of 14, IgG levels were < 400 mg/dl, some of whom received IVIG. Fifteen patients had serial BK/JC levels without ever detecting virus. Conclusions R+3Dex provides clearly superior results to rituximab alone. Notably, there was a 75% response rate overall (50/67 pts) compared to 50% with R alone. The 5 year response rate was almost 50% of all patients and 3/5 of responders. In patients who had had ITP for ≤ 2 years, the response is comparable to what has been reported with splenectomy. Specifically the results in the ≤ 2 year group suggest that R+3Dex is an effective way to induce indefinitely normal platelet counts in pts with a “short” duration of ITP. R+3Dex was tolerable although patients had difficulty with 3 cycles of dex. The 21% rate of hypogammaglobulinemia, higher than that seen with R alone, is also evidence of the mechanism of R+3Dex affecting both B cells and plasma cells. The lasting, long-lived, unmaintained responses observed in this study suggest that this combination therapeutic strategy should be further tested in a controlled trial in patients with newly diagnosed, persistent, and early chronic ITP, whether or not they have been previously treated with other agents. Disclosures: Bussel: Sysmex: Research Funding; Cangene: Research Funding; Symphogen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Eisai: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ligand: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; IgG of America: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Rituximab Plus Bendamustine and Cytarabine (R-BAC) in Elderly Patients with Newly Diagnosed Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Long Term Follow-up and Mrd Results of a Phase 2 Study from the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-153364 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 384-384

Author(s):

Maria Chiara Tisi ◽

Luca Nassi ◽

Caterina Patti ◽

Michele Spina ◽

Simone Ferrero ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Elderly Patients ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Mantle Cell

Abstract The activity of the combination of rituximab, bendamustine, and low dose cytarabine (R-BAC) was evaluated in a phase 2 multicentre trial from the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL RBAC500) in previously untreated patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who were not eligible to stem cell transplant. Maintenance treatment was not planned after induction therapy, and no patient in the study received rituximab maintenance. Fifty-seven patients (median age 71 years, range 61-79) were recruited and treated with 4 to 6 cycles between 2012 and 2014. Despite some concern in terms of hematological toxicity, the R-BAC regimen was associated with high complete remission (CR) rate (91%), 2-years overall survival (OS) of 86% (74-93), and 2-years progression free survival (PFS) of 81% (68-89). Here, we present long-term survival outcomes. After 7 years of median follow-up (86 months, range 57-107), the median OS and PFS for all patients were not reached (Figure 1A and 1B). The 7-years PFS and OS rates were 56% (95%CI 41-67) and 63% (95%CI 46-72), respectively. Patients who achieved CR (n=53) had a 7 years PFS of 59% (95% CI 44-71), with the curve that appears to plateau after 6 years. Adverse predictive factors affecting PFS were blastoid morphology (p<0.05), elevated Ki67 > 30% (p<0.05), and failure to achieve CR after 2 cycles (p=0.03). Early-progression of disease (<24 months from start of R-BAC) was associated with impaired overall survival (p<0.05). Eight patients (14%) developed a secondary neoplasia: 1 parotid heteroplasia, 1 parotid nodular hyperplasia, 1 prostate cancer, 1 bladder cancer, 1 larynx, 1 thyroid cancer, 1 lung cancer and 1 secondary acute myeloid leukemia. Among the 25 relapsed patients, 8 did not receive any other treatment. Six had Ibrutinib monotherapy as second line, of whom 4 responded (3 are still in CR), 4 had CHOP or CHOP-like regimens with only partial responses. As per protocol, 31 patients with molecular marker at diagnosis and available samples were followed-up for minimal residual disease (MRD) with ASO-droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (D-PCR). Patients with MRD persistence at the end of induction, either in peripheral blood or bone marrow, had significantly worse 7 years-PFS (p<0.05 for them both). In conclusion, in elderly patients with newly diagnosed MCL, R-BAC showed sustained efficacy over time, which compared favorably with any other reported immuno-chemotherapy regimen (with or without maintenance) in similar populations. With a median OS exceeding 60% after 7-years this regimen has significantly impacted on the life-expectancy of elderly patients with MCL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Tisi: Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BWS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nassi: Takeda: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Ferrero: Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Clinigen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zilioli: Takeda: Other: travel expenses, accommodation; MSD, Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations; Roche, Italfarmaco: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentili, Takeda, Gilead, Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Merli: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Gilead Science: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; EUSA Pharma: Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Celgene: Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses.

Download Full-text