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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nilotinib Lowers the Incidence of BCR-ABL Mutations and Improves the Molecular Response Kinetics Compared with Imatinib in Patients (Pts) with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML).

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3431-3431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Hochhaus ◽  
Giuseppe Saglio ◽  
Richard A. Larson ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
Ian W. Flinn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Direct Sequencing ◽  
Rapid Decline ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Close Monitoring ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
New Mutations

Abstract Abstract 3431 Background: In the ENESTnd (Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials–Newly Diagnosed Pts) trial, nilotinib demonstrated superior efficacy vs imatinib in newly diagnosed pts. Here, we examined the kinetics of molecular response and BCR-ABL mutation status in pts from ENESTnd. Methods: Pts with CML-CP were randomized to receive nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (bid) (n = 282), nilotinib 400 mg bid (n = 281), or imatinib 400 mg once daily (qd) (n = 283). BCR-ABL transcripts were quantified at baseline (BL) and every 3 months (mos); MMR was defined as ≤ 0.1% BCR-ABL on the International Scale (IS). Mutational testing of BCR-ABL was performed by direct sequencing at BL and at the occurrence of: (i) 5-fold increase in PCR levels, (ii) failure to achieve MMR at 12 mos, (iii) loss of MMR (≥ 0.1% BCR-ABLIS confirmed by a subsequent sample in association with a ≥ 5-fold rise in BCR-ABL from the lowest value achieved on study treatment), and (iv) end of treatment. Median follow-up was 18 mos. Results: During therapy, a more rapid decline in BCR-ABL levels was demonstrated in the nilotinib arms vs imatinib (Table). The median BCR-ABL levels for pts on nilotinib at 6 mos (both arms) were similar to those on imatinib at 18 mos. The median time to MMR among responders was also shorter on nilotinib (6, 8, and 10 mos in the nilotinib 300 mg bid, 400 mg bid, and imatinib arms, respectively). Loss of MMR occurred in 14 (2%) pts (6 [2%], 5 [2%], and 3 [1%] in the nilotinib 300 mg bid, 400 mg bid, and imatinib arms). Of the 14, none progressed to accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC); only 1 of these pts showed a BCR-ABL mutation (M244V) in the imatinib arm, and 1 pt in the nilotinib 300 mg bid arm lost CCyR. Overall, 9 of 14 (64%) pts, including 8 of 11 on nilotinib, regained MMR within 6 mos on their assigned therapy. In 3 of these 9 pts who regained MMR, loss of MMR was concurrent with dose reduction, and MMR was regained at the time of dose re-escalation. Poor compliance may have contributed to fluctuations in BCR-ABL levels in some pts. At BL, no BCR-ABL mutations were found; 60 pts had polymorphisms which were equally distributed among the 3 arms. Mutational testing was triggered on therapy in 164, 171, and 199 pts in the nilotinib 300 mg bid, 400 mg bid, and imatinib arms, respectively, most commonly due to lack of MMR at 12 mos. Approximately twice as many BCR-ABL mutations (16 [6%]) developed in the imatinib arm vs nilotinib arms (8 [3%] and 5 [2%] for 300 mg bid and 400 mg bid), and most of these were detected within the first 12 mos. The majority of mutations in the nilotinib arms were less sensitive (Y253H, E255K, F359V) or resistant (T315I) to nilotinib, while both nilotinib-sensitive and insensitive mutations were detected in the imatinib arm (Table). The T315I mutation emerged in 5 pts: 2 on nilotinib 300 mg bid, 1 on nilotinib 400 mg bid, and 2 on imatinib; two of these 5 pts discontinued therapy. Overall, 6 of 16 pts with mutations on imatinib progressed to AP/BC vs only 1 of 13 pts on nilotinib (Table). Minimum 24 month follow-up data for all pts will be presented. Conclusions: Pts treated with nilotinib had faster and deeper molecular responses compared with imatinib. The incidence of new mutations was highest for imatinib, and most pts with mutations on nilotinib have not progressed with 18 mos of median follow-up. Loss of MMR was infrequent and was regained in the majority of cases without a change in therapy, and was not typically associated with subsequent treatment failure or the emergence of new mutations. Therefore, loss of MMR may not be an indicator for adjusting therapy, although close monitoring for further loss of response is warranted and mutation testing may be considered. Disclosures: Hochhaus: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Saglio:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Larson:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. 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. Flinn:Novartis: Research Funding. Goh:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Ciliag: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Dorlhiac-Llacer:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Wyeth: Research Funding. Porkka:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kurokawa:Novartis: Consultancy; Shionogi & Co., Ltd.: Consultancy. Shou:Novartis: Employment. Gallagher:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment, Equity Ownership. Haque:Novartis: Employment. Kantarjian:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Hughes:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria.

scholarly journals Myeloproliferative Neoplasms (MPN) Clonal Evolution Landscape and Its Impact on Patients' Prognosis

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 317-317
Author(s):  
Lin-Pierre Zhao ◽  
Marine Cazaux ◽  
Nabih Maslah ◽  
Rafael Daltro De Oliveira ◽  
Emmanuelle Verger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Myeloproliferative Neoplasms ◽  
Clonal Evolution ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Driver Mutation ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival

Abstract Introduction: Although myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) are driven by three mutually exclusive driver mutations (JAK2, CALR and MPL), targeted deep sequencing studies identified multiple additional somatic mutations potentially impacting MPN evolution. Presence of a high molecular risk (HMR: ASXL1, EZH2, SRSF2 and IDH1/2) or a TP53 mutations has been associated with adverse prognosis. However, to date, the effect of clonal evolution (CEv) on MPN patients' outcome has not been evaluated, as most of the studies assessed mutational-based prognosis stratification from single baseline molecular genotyping. The objective of our study was to describe the clinical and molecular characteristics of patients with CEv in a large cohort of MPN patients and analyze its impact on patients' outcome. Methods: A total of 1538 consecutive patients were diagnosed with MPN according to WHO criteria and followed in our hospital between January 2011 and January 2021. From this large retrospective cohort, we included in this study 446 patients who had at least 2 molecular analyses during the chronic phase of MPN, performed at diagnosis and/or during follow-up using next generation sequencing (NGS), targeting a panel of 36 genes involved in myeloid malignancies. Significant variants were retained with a sensitivity of 1%. CEv was defined as the acquisition of a new additional non-driver mutation between baseline and subsequent NGS evaluation. Statistical analyses were performed using the STATA software (STATA 17.0 for Mac Corporation, College Station, TX). Results: The median age at MPN diagnosis in our whole cohort was 51 years [IQR 41 - 60]. Our cohort included 167 (37%), 205 (46%) and 64 (14%) patients with polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia and primary myelofibrosis (MF) respectively. With a median interval of 1.6 years [IQR 1.0 - 2.8] between the first and the second NGS analysis in the whole cohort, CEv occurred in 128 patients (29%). Patients with CEv were significantly older compared to patients without CEv (n=318) (p=0.03). MPN diagnosis, the type of driver mutation and complete blood counts at MPN diagnosis did not differ between the 2 groups. Eighty-one (63%) and 198 (62%) patients with or without CEv respectively had at least one additional non-driver mutation at baseline NGS (p=0.59), while the rate of HMR (n=25 (20%) versus n=79 (25%)) or TP53 (n=7 (5%) versus n=20 (6%)) mutations at baseline NGS did not differ between the 2 groups. Thirty six out of 128 (28%) of patients with CEv had more than 1 acquired mutation. Most recurrently acquired mutations involved the epigenetic regulators TET2 and DNMT3A that were mutated in respectively 33% and 25% of patients with CEv (Figure 1A). Moreover, 38% of CEv patients acquired HMR (ASXL1 (14%), EZH2 (6%), SRSF2 (3%), IDH1/2 (2%)) or TP53 (13%) mutations. After a median follow up of 10.8 years [IQR 6.6 - 17.2] in the whole cohort representing a total of 5635 patient years, 32 (7%) patients died, and 11 (2.5%) and 11 (2.5%) patients with at least 2 NGS performed during MPN chronic phase transformed respectively into secondary MF or myelodysplastic syndrome / acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML). Interestingly, CEv (HR 11.27, 95%CI [5.09; 24.96], p&lt;0.001) (Figure 1B), age at MPN diagnosis (HR 1.11, 95%CI [1.07; 1.15], p&lt;0.001) and the presence of HMR mutations at baseline NGS (HR 4.48, 95%CI [2.05; 9.77], p &lt;0.001) independently adversely impacted OS in a COX regression multivariate analysis. CEv also independently adversely impacted MDS/AML free survival (HR 13.15, 95%CI [3.88; 44.47], p&lt;0.001) and secondary MF free survival (HR 21.13, 95%CI [6.18; 72.20], p&lt;0.001) in a COX regression multivariate analysis. Conclusion: Our study on a large retrospective clinically and biologically annotated real-life cohort of MPN patients with long-term follow up shows that CEv independently adversely impacts OS, MDS/AML and secondary MF free survivals. CEv occurred in a clinically relevant proportion of MPN patients (28%) and was associated with patients' age. Acquired mutations mainly involved epigenetic regulators, HMR and TP53 genes. These results suggest that serial molecular monitoring using NGS could be routinely implemented in MPN patients follow up, to assess more accurately disease evolution and potentially update therapeutic management. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Raffoux: PFIZER: Consultancy; CELGENE/BMS: Consultancy; ABBVIE: Consultancy; ASTELLAS: Consultancy. Kiladjian: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taiho Oncology, Inc.: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PharmaEssentia: Other: Personal fees; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Benajiba: Gilead: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding.

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

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 44-45
Author(s):  
Franck E Nicolini ◽  
Vincent Alcazer ◽  
Pascale Cony-Makhoul ◽  
Stephanie Dulucq ◽  
Sandrine Hayette ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Long Term Outcome

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&lt;0.001) and low ELTS (HR=0.41 [0.22-0.76], p&lt;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&lt;0.001). Univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated that only age impacted on the CI of CVE (HR= 1.07 [1.04-1.10], p&lt;0.001, and HR=1.07 [1.04-1.10], p&lt;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.

scholarly journals Title: 12 Versus 8 Prophylactic Intrathecal (IT) Chemotherapy Administration Decrease Incidence of Central Nervous System (CNS) Relapse in Patients (pts) with Newly Diagnosed Philadelphia (Ph)-Positive Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL)

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3810-3810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shilpa Paul ◽  
Koji Sasaki ◽  
J Michael Savoy ◽  
Adam Dipippo ◽  
Nadya Jammal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Leptomeningeal Disease ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Cns Relapse ◽  
Increased Risk

Introduction: The addition of tyrosine kinase inhibitors to hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone, vincristine, and doxorubicin alternating with high-dose methotrexate and cytarabine (HCVAD) for the treatment of Ph-positive ALL has significantly improved outcomes. However, with the increased median survival, an increased incidence of CNS relapses were documented over time, thus suggesting an increased risk among pts with Ph-positive disease (Ravandi et al, Cancer 2015).In order to reduce this incidence, treatment protocols for Ph-positive ALL were amended in 2012 to increase prophylactic IT chemotherapy from 8 to 12 at our institution. The aim of this study is to compare the incidence of CNS relapses in pts with Ph-positive ALL treated with 8 versus 12 ITs. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 156 pts with newly diagnosed Ph-positive ALL treated with Rituximab (R)± HCVAD plus imatinib (n=35), dasatinib (n=68), or ponatinib (n=53) between July 2001 and January 2019. Pts with CNS disease at initial diagnosis were excluded. Complete molecular response (CMR) at 3 months was defined as absence of a quantifiable BCR-ABL1 transcript. CNS relapse was identified by detection of blasts or rare atypical cells in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in at least 2 successive evaluations and/or findings of leptomeningeal disease on imaging. Landmark analysis was performed at 6 months at the approximate time of completion of both systemic and IT therapy. Poor risk cytogenetic abnormality was defined as the presence of +der(22)t(9;22) and/or −9/9p in the absence of high hyperdiploidy (51‐65 chromosomes). CNS relapse-free survival (RFS) was defined from the start of therapy to the time of CNS relapse. Patients who died or relapsed in bone marrow were censored at the time of death and systemic relapse, respectively. Survival was assessed with and without the censoring of allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Results: Pt characteristics are summarized in Figure A. One hundred and twelve pts (72%) received a median of 8 ITs (range, 2-8) and 44 pts (28%) received a median of 12 (range, 9-15). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in regards to baseline characteristics with the exception that more patients in the > 8 ITs cohort received ponatinib (66% vs 21%) and thus achieved a higher rate of 3-month CMR (70% vs 52%; p=0.04). CNS relapses were identified in 11 pts overall (7%, 4 treated with imatinib and 7 with dasatinib) and all of them received 8 or less prophylactic ITs (IT ≤8, 10% vs IT >8, 0%; p=0.023). The median follow-up of the entire population was 81 months, and 97 and 43 months for pts who received ≤8 and >8 ITs, respectively. The 3 and 6-year CNS RFS was 89% and 88% in pts with ≤8 ITs and 100% in pts with >8 Its, respectively (overall P=0.041; 3-yr CNS RFS P=0.049; 6-yr CNS RFS P=0.045) (Figure B). The outcomes remained statistically significant even after censoring for ASCT (P=0.048) (Figure C). In a multivariate analysis and after adjusting for the follow-up time, a median of 12 prophylactic IT chemotherapies was a prognostic factor significantly associated with a decrease rate of CNS relapses (P=0.03; HR=0.64 95%, CI: 0.43-0.96) (Figure D). Conclusion: In pts with newly diagnosed Ph-positive ALL, incorporation of 12 prophylactic IT chemotherapy in addition to systemic therapy is a very effective strategy to reduce the long-term incidence of CNS relapses. Figure Disclosures Paul: Pfizer: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy. Sasaki:Otsuka: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy. Kadia:BMS: Research Funding; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bioline RX: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Garcia-Manero:Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Ravandi:Macrogenix: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Xencor: Consultancy, Research Funding; Menarini Ricerche: Research Funding; Selvita: Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding. Kantarjian:BMS: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jabbour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Updated 18-Month Results from Dasfree: A Study Evaluating Dasatinib Discontinuation in Patients (Pts) with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CML-CP) and Deep Molecular Response (DMR)

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4253-4253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil P. Shah ◽  
Jose Valentín García Gutiérrez ◽  
Antonio Jiménez-Velasco ◽  
Sarah Larson ◽  
Susanne Saussele ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Relapse Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival

Abstract Introduction: Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) discontinuation is being investigated in pts with CML-CP with sustained DMR (defined here as MR4.5 or BCR-ABL1 ≤ 0.0032% on the International Scale [IS]), with the goal of treatment-free remission (TFR). Successful TFR has been reported previously for pts enrolled in DASFREE (CA180-406/NCT01850004), which showed that 48% of CML-CP pts with DMR for ≥ 1 year were able to stop dasatinib and maintain major molecular response (MMR) 12 months after discontinuation. Here we present updated results from pts followed for a minimum of 18 months, in order to understand the durability of TFR beyond 12 months. Methods: DASFREE is a phase 2, open-label, single-arm study in adult pts with CML-CP on dasatinib for ≥ 2 years as 1st-line or subsequent therapy. Eligible pts had dasatinib-induced DMR (MR4.5) confirmed at a local lab for ≥ 1 year prior to enrollment, with a 1-log reduction in BCR-ABL1 from baseline within 3-6.5 months of starting dasatinib. MR4.5 was confirmed at a central lab twice within 3 months prior to dasatinib discontinuation (screening phase). BCR-ABL1 was monitored centrally after discontinuation every month in the 1st year, then every 3 months. Pts resumed dasatinib at their previous dose if MMR was lost. The primary endpoint is the rate of MMR 12 months after dasatinib discontinuation. Secondary endpoints include BCR-ABL1 kinetics, molecular relapse-free survival (MRFS; no loss of MMR), relapse-free survival (RFS; no loss of MMR, complete cytogenetic response, or complete hematologic response, or progression to accelerated/blast phase [AP/BP] CML), rate of transformation to AP/BP, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Exploratory analyses include frequency of adverse events (AEs) after discontinuation and during dasatinib treatment, and MMR after reinitiating dasatinib. Results: In total, 84 pts enrolled between February 2014 and June 2016 discontinued dasatinib; all had ≥ 18 months of follow-up after discontinuation at the time of this analysis. Pt characteristics were previously reported (the majority [64%] had low Sokal scores; no pt had prior interferon; 37 pts were on 1st-line dasatinib, 47 on subsequent lines of dasatinib). At 18 months after discontinuation, the RFS rate was 48% (95% CI 37-58) in all pts (Figure), 54% (95% CI 38, 70) in 1st-line pts, and 42% (95% CI 28, 57) in pts who received subsequent-line therapy. With longer follow-up, 1 additional pt lost MMR at 18 months following discontinuation. Of the 45 pts who lost MMR and restarted treatment, 44 regained MMR (1 pt discontinued after only 1 molecular assessment) in a median of 2 months (range 1-4) and 42 regained MR4.5 in a median of 3 months (range 2-18). Analyses of baseline pt characteristics revealed that for the 40 pts who did not lose MMR after discontinuation, 15 (37.5%) were able to maintain MR4.5. Additionally, the median time in prior MR4.5 was 28 months (range 13-116) for all pts, and was similar for 1st-line pts who maintained (27 months [range 13-56]) or lost MMR (27 months [range 15-68]) at 12 months. With longer follow-up, AEs (any cause) identified were consistent with previous reports and were found to be similar on and off treatment: 8 (10%) pts off treatment and 8 (18%) pts on treatment experienced grade 3/4 AEs of any cause after restarting dasatinib (4.4% were drug related). No transformation events or deaths occurred. Of the 13 reported withdrawal events occurring in 8 (9.5%) pts, 10 were resolved (5 off treatment, 5 resolved after restarting treatment due to loss of MMR) after a median of 5 months (range 1-12) after onset. One pt discontinued after restarting dasatinib due to malignancy unrelated to treatment. In addition to efficacy and safety data, multivariate analyses evaluating prognostic factors for MMR will be presented. Conclusions: Additional follow-up of pts enrolled in DASFREE revealed that TFR remained durable at 18 months after discontinuing dasatinib. AEs reported here were consistent with the known safety profile of dasatinib, and withdrawal was well tolerated. Collectively, this trial, the largest dasatinib discontinuation trial to date, continues to support the feasibility and practicality of TFR in pts with CML-CP in DMR treated with dasatinib in the 1st line and beyond. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Shah: ARIAD: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. García Gutiérrez:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Larson:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Saussele:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria. Rea:Incyte: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria. Mahon:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Levy:Takeda (Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.): Consultancy. Gómez-Casares:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Pane:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy. Nicolini:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sun Pharma: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Mauro:Pfizer: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sy:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Martin Regueira:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lipton:ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Spirit 2: An NCRI Randomised Study Comparing Dasatinib with Imatinib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed CML

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 517-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen G O'Brien ◽  
Corinne Hedgley ◽  
Sarah Adams ◽  
Letizia Foroni ◽  
Jane F. Apperley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Blast Crisis ◽  
Cytogenetic Response ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Event Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Objective. SPIRIT 2 is the largest phase 3 prospective randomized open-label trial comparing imatinib 400mg with dasatinib 100mg daily: this is the first presentation of data comparing the two arms. Methods. 814 patients were recruited at 144 hospitals between August 2008 and March 2013. 812 started study medication (406 in each arm). The primary endpoint is event-free survival at 5 years. A key secondary endpoint is the rate of achievement of a BCR-ABL/ABL ratio of &lt;0.1%IS (major molecular response (MMR), 3 log reduction or MR3). Results. Discontinuations. With a median follow up of 34 months a total of 289/812 (35.6%) patients have discontinued study medication. 118/812 (14.5%) patients have discontinued due to non-haematological toxicity: imatinib 47/406 (11.6%); dasatinib 71/406 (17.5%). 40 patients discontinued due to sub optimal response as assessed by the treating physician: imatinib 37/406 (9.1%); dasatinib 3/406 (0.7%). Side effects. Patients receiving imatinib experienced GI toxicity more often than patients receiving dasatinib; fatigue, rash and headache were more common with dasatinib. A higher rate of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was observed in the dasatinib arm: imatinib 17/406 (4.2%); dasatinib 52/406 (12.8%). Pleural effusions occurred in 78/406 (19.2%) patients on dasatinib; 13 of 78 (16.7%) patients required drainage. Arterial cardiovascular events (excluding hypertension) were experienced by 10/812 (1.2%) patients: imatinib 2/406 (0.5%; myocardial infarction (MI) x2); dasatinib 8/406 (2.0%; MI x1; angina/acute coronary syndrome x5; peripheral arterial disease x2). Hypertension was observed in 10/812 (1.2%) patients: imatinib 3/406 (0.7%); dasatinib 7/406 (1.7%). Venous CV events occurred in 7/812 (0.9%) patients: imatinib 3/406 (0.7%); dasatinib 4/406 (1.0%).Efficacy.For both PCR and cytogenetic analyses patients that had discontinued their allocated therapy or that did not have a 12 month sample were analysed as not having achieved MR3/CCR. The MR3 (PCR &lt;0.1% IS) rate at 12 months in all treated patients is significantly different (p&lt;0.001) between the two treatment arms: imatinib 173/406 (42.6%); dasatinib 236/406 (58.1%). The MR3 rate at 12 months in patients treated with dasatinib is 51/78 (65.4%) in those with a pleural effusion and 185/328 (56.4%) in those without (p=0.148, NS).The complete cytogenetic response (CCR) rate at 12 months is: imatinib 163/406 (40.1%); dasatinib 207/406 (51.0%). The difference between the two treatment arms is statistically significant (p=0.002) but caution is required in interpreting these data as there were missing analyses in 367 of 812 (45.2%) patients: imatinib 191 of 406 (47.0%), dasatinib 176 of 406 (43.3%). The difference in major cytogenetic response (MCR) rate between the two treatment arms at 12 months is not statistically significant: imatinib 200/406 (49.3%); dasatinib 218/406 (53.7%), p=0.206.Disease progression and deaths. 16 patients have progressed to either accelerated phase or blast crisis and 13 of those progressions were within the first year. Accelerated phase: imatinib 3/406 (0.7%); dasatinib 2/406 (0.5%). Blast crisis: imatinib 7/406 (1.7%); dasatinib 4/406 (1.0%). Conclusions. Dasatinib-treated patients have a higher rate of molecular response at 1 year but, with a median of 34 months follow up, there is no significant difference in rates of disease progression or overall survival. More patients abandoned imatinib than dasatinib due to investigator concerns about sub optimal responses. Further follow up is required to evaluate whether there will be differences in event free survival at five years. Disclosures O'Brien: Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hedgley:BMS: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding. Adams:BMS: Research Funding. Apperley:Ariad Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Holyoake:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: 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. Byrne:BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Ariad: Consultancy. Osborne:ARIAD: Research Funding. Copland:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria. Clark:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Excellent Outcomes at 3 Years with Nilotinib 800 Mg Daily In Early Chronic Phase, Ph+ Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML): Results of a Phase 2 GIMEMA CML WP Clinical Trial

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 359-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianantonio Rosti ◽  
Fausto Castagnetti ◽  
Gabriele Gugliotta ◽  
Massimo Breccia ◽  
Luciano Levato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Daily Dose ◽  
Cumulative Rate

Abstract Abstract 359 Background: Nilotinib is a potent and selective inhibitor of BCR-ABL. In the phase 3 ENESTnd trial, nilotinib demonstrated superior efficacy to imatinib with higher and faster molecular responses. With a median follow-up of 18.5 months (ASCO/EHA 2010), the rates of progression to accelerated or blast phase (AP/BC) were 0.7% and 0.4% with nilotinib 300 mg and 400 mg BID, respectively, and significantly lower in comparison to imatinib (4.2% P = .006 and .003, respectively). Based on the results of the ENESTnd trial, nilotinib has been approved (FDA) for the frontline treatment of Ph+ CML. With imatinib 400 mg (IRIS trial), the rate of any event and the rate of progression to AP/BC were higher during the first 3 years on treatment (15.6% and 6.1%, respectively). Consequently, a confirmation of the durability of nilotinib responses at 3 years is extremely important. Aims: To evaluate responses (either cytogenetic and molecular) and to investigate outcomes of patients treated for 3-years with nilotinib 400 mg BID as frontline therapy. Outcomes evaluated include Overall Survival (OS), Progression-Free Survival (PFS), Failure-Free Survival (FFS) and Event-Free Survival (EFS). Method: A multicentre phase 2 trial (nilotinib 400 mg BID) was conducted by the GIMEMA CML Working Party (ClinicalTrials.gov.NCT00481052). The median follow-up is currently 30 months (3 years by November 2010). Definitions: Major Molecular Response (MMR): BCR-ABL/ABL ratio < 0,1% IS; Complete Molecular Response (CMR): undetectable transcript levels and nested PCR negative; failures: no CHR at 3 months, no CgR at 6 months, no PCgR at 1 year, no CCgR at 18 months, loss CHR or CCgR, progression and death (according to the revised European LeukemiaNet recommendations); events: failures and treatment discontinuation for any reason. All the analysis has been made according to the intention-to-treat principle. Result: 73 patients have been enrolled; median age 51 years (range 18–83); 45% low, 41% intermediate and 14% high Sokal risk. The cumulative CCgR rate (primary endpoint) at 12 months was 100%. CCgR at each milestone: 78% at 3 months, 96% at 6, 12 and 18 months, 92% at 24 months. The cumulative rate of MMR was 96%, while the rates of MMR at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months were 52%, 66%, 85%, 81% and 82%, respectively. The cumulative rate of CMR was 41%, while the rates of CMR at 12 and 24 months were 7% and 12%, respectively. None of the patients who achieved a MMR progressed to AP/BC. Only one patient progressed at 6 months to AP/BC: a 63 years old female with a high Sokal risk disease in CCgR at 3 months, who developed a T315I mutation. During the first 12 months, the mean daily dose was 600–800 mg, 400–599 mg, and less than 400 mg in 74%, 18% and 8% of patients, respectively. The nilotinib last daily dose was as follows: 800 mg in 48 (71%) patients, 400 mg in 19 (28%) patients and 200 mg in 1 (1%) patient. Adverse events (AEs) were mostly grade 1 or 2 and manageable with appropriate dose adaptations. Two patients (3%) showed a prolongation of the QTcF above 450 msec (none above 50 msec). Four events lead to permanent discontinuation of nilotinib: 3 patients discontinued after 9, 15 and 27 months on treatment for recurrent episodes of amylase and/or lipase increase (no pancreatitis) and 1 patient after 25 months due to atrial fibrillation, unrelated to study drug. Three of them are currently on imatinib second-line and 1 on dasatinib third-line. Overall, 5 events have been recorded so far (1 progression to AB/BC and 4 permanent discontinuation of nilotinib due to AEs). At 30 months the OS, PFS and FFS are 99% and the EFS is 92%. Conclusion: The rate of failures was very low during the first 3 years. Responses remain stable. The very high rates of responses achieved during the first 12 months on treatment are being translated into optimal outcome for most of the patients. Acknowledgments: European LeukemiaNet, COFIN, Bologna University, BolognAIL Disclosures: Rosti: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau. Castagnetti:Novartis: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Gugliotta:Novartis: Honoraria. Saglio:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Martinelli:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; pfizer: Consultancy. Baccarani:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Wyeth: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document