Comparasion Between Nilotinib and Dasatinib as Second-Line Therapy for Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: A Single Center Retrospective Study.

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3440-3440
Author(s):  
Clarisse Lobo ◽  
Carla Boquimpani ◽  
Tania Silva Madeira ◽  
Patricia Wendling ◽  
Claudia Maximo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line

Abstract Abstract 3440 Nilotinib and dasatinib are second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) used in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) resistant or intolerant to imatinib. There are no randomized clinical trials comparing these drugs in this context. The aim of this study was to compare, retrospectively, the hematological, cytogenetic and molecular response in patients submitted to these second-generation TKI at Hemorio, a public brazilian institution. A total of 114 patients were analyzed, 63 received nilotinib and 51 dasatinib as second-line therapy (55.3% and 44.7%, respectively). The following variables were equally distributed between these two groups (nilotinib vs. dasatinib, respectively): male sex (54% vs. 60.8%, p=0.46), median age at diagnosis (46 vs. 45 years, p=0.76), median time in months using imatinib before the switch (45.2 vs. 44.1, p=0.96), resistance to imatinib (98.4% vs. 98%, p=0.88), presence of the mutation T315I (3.2% vs. 3.9%, p=0.09), patients in chronic phase before the switch (85.7% vs. 86.3%, p=0.93). Use of another second generation TKI, as a third-line therapy, was necessary in 30 out of the 114 patients analyzed (26.1%) because of lack of response. This modification was slightly more frequent in the group initially submitted to nilotinib (31.7% vs. 19.6%, p=0.21). Patients who used a third-line therapy were excluded from response and survival analyzes. Response rates after the second-generation TKI were similar between these two groups (nilotinib vs. dasatinib): complete hematological response until three months (77.8% vs. 87.3%, p=0.24), complete cytogenetic response until six months (21.6% vs. 22.2%, p=0.95) and 12 months (32.4% vs. 33.3%, p=0.94) and major molecular response reached before 12 months (32.7% vs. 21.6%, p=0.25). Two-year overall survival (OS) and progression free-survival (PFS) were similar between these two groups (nilotinib vs. dasatinib, respectively): 92.2% vs. 87.8% (p=0.38) for OS and 87.8% vs. 83.7% (p=0.14) for PFS. Although not statistically significant, two-year OS was inferior in the group of patients who needed a third-line therapy (70.5% vs. 95.6%, p=0.70). Our results suggest that the response and survival rates are similar between nilotinib and dasatinib as second-line therapy for patients with imatinib resistant or intolerant CML. Also, they suggest an inferior prognosis for patients who need a third-line therapy. In this way, the choice between these two TKI for second-line therapy should be guided by the clinical characteristics and the mutation status of the patient. Disclosures: Lobo: NOVARTIS: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Dasatinib tyrosine kinase inhibitor as second and third line therapy in chronic myeloid leukemia: outcome of a Nepalese study

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-56
Author(s):  
Nora Ranjitkar Manandhar ◽  
Gyan Krishna Kayashta ◽  
Paras Kumar Acharya
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Tyrosine Kinase ◽  
Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line

Introductions: Dasatinib is indicated as a first line, second line and third line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). In our center it is used as a second line or third line therapy in BCR-ABL gene positive CML. Methods: It is a retrospective observational therapy done from June 2015 to May 2018. The purpose of the study is to see the response rates using the second line and third line dasatinib after failing or not tolerating imatinib alone or following a sequential therapy with imatinib and nilotinib. Results: A total of 31 (male 56.3%) patients were included in our study. In eighteen patients it was used as a second line TKI and in 13 a third line TKI. Complete Hematologic Response (CHR) was achieved in 93.55%. Best optimal responses were 46.66% and 61.53% in second and third line dasatinib respectively. Major Molecular Response (MMR) was achieved in 35.71% (26.66% and 46.14% in second line and third line dasatinib respectively). For both the groups, the overall survival was 92% and 94 % at 20 months and the event free survival was 70% at 10 months. Conclusions: Dasatinib is effective in achieving MMR and inducing survival benefit in the patients who failed imatinib alone and imatinib and nilotinib.

Switch to Subsequent Line of Treatment in Children and Adolescents with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) Treated with Imatinib: Experience of the International Registry for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Children and Adolescents (I-CML-Ped Study)

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 1576-1576
Author(s):  
Frédéric Millot ◽  
Joelle Guilhot ◽  
Meinolf Suttorp ◽  
Anne Sophie Meunier ◽  
Gunes Adalet Meral ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Hematologic Response ◽  
International Registry ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Aims: To determine in children and adolescents with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase (CP) treated with imatinib front line, (i) the probability of switch to a second line therapy, (ii) to characterize the reasons and the type of switch and (iii) to determine the impact of the switch on outcome. Methods: Children and adolescents (<18 years) with CML diagnosed later than the year 2000 and enrolled in the international registry for childhood CML (I-CML-Ped Study) were the subjects of the study. Results: The I-CML-Ped study enrolled 301 children and adolescents with CML in CP treated with imatinib front line. Among them 112 patients subsequently switched to a second line therapy (median duration of imatinib treatment before the switch: 16 months [range: 1-111]).The probability of switch at 38 months was 50% (95% CI: 29-60). Primary resistance was the cause of switch in 47% of the patients: failure to achieve complete hematologic response (CHR, 1%), complete cytogenetic response (CCR, 20%) or major molecular response (MMR, 24%); not detailed (2%). A loss of response (CHR loss [2%] or CCR loss [4%] or MMR loss [13%]) or progression were the cause of switch in 19% and 4% of the patients, respectively. Occurrence of non hematologic toxicity (mainly muscle-skeleton pain) was the cause of switch in 10% of the patients. The reason of switch was the physician's choice in 20% of the patients (switch to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [HSCT] while the patients were in MMR or deeper molecular response). The second line therapy consisted of second generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (63%), chemotherapy (4%) or HSCT (33%). With a median follow up of 38 months (range: 2-150), overall, 8 deaths were recorded among switching patients: all were patients transplanted for acute phase (4 patients), hematologic resistance (1 patient), loss of hematologic response (1 patient) or physician's choice (2 patients). The causes of death were treatment related mortality (7 patients) and relapse (1 patient). One death only was recorded among the non switching patients. The probability of overall survival at 48 months was 90% (95% CI: 81% - 95%) for switching patients and 98% (95% CI: 89% - 100%) (p=0.005) for the non switching patients. Conclusion: Treatment failure is the main reason for a switch to a second line therapy in children and adolescents treated with imatinib front line. Efficacy of second line therapy still needs improvement. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Responses to Dasatinib as a Second- and Third-Line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor in Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia Patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 142 (2) ◽  
pp. 79-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiaqi Tan ◽  
Mengxing Xue ◽  
Jinlan Pan ◽  
Jiannong Cen ◽  
Xiaomei Qi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia ◽  
Myeloid Leukaemia ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line ◽  
Dasatinib Treatment

We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of dasatinib among 48 Chinese patients with chronic phase chronic myeloid leukaemia. The proportions of patients achieving the optimal molecular responses at 3, 6, and 12 months, a major molecular response (MMR) rate and a complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) rate were 87.0, 87.0, 72.2, 45.8, and 72.7% for patients with dasatinib as second-line therapy, and 34.8, 34.8, 33.3, 20.8, and 46.2% as third-line therapy, respectively. A BCR-ABL1 transcript level on the International Scale (BCR-ABL1IS) of ≤10% at the initiation of ­dasatinib treatment was found to be associated with a higher probability of achieving MMR. Among patients with a ­BCR-ABL1IS higher than 10% at initiation of dasatinib treatment, dasatinib showed better performance as a second-line therapy than as a third-line therapy. The patients who achieved an optimal molecular response at 3 months had a superior cumulative incidence of MMR and CCyR compared with patients who failed to achieve such a response. Dasatinib induced considerable responses as a second-line treatment, especially in patients with a BCR-ABL1IS ≤10% at initiation of treatment, whereas the efficacy was limited in patients receiving third-line therapy with a BCR-ABL1IS >10% at the initiation of treatment.

scholarly journals Efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) as third-line therapy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase who have failed 2 prior lines of TKI therapy

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (25) ◽  
pp. 5497-5500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amr R. Ibrahim ◽  
Christos Paliompeis ◽  
Marco Bua ◽  
Dragana Milojkovic ◽  
Richard Szydlo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Tyrosine Kinase ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Cytogenetic Response ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line

Abstract We analyzed a cohort of 26 patients with chronic myeloid leukemia who had failed imatinib and a second tyrosine kinase inhibitor but were still in first chronic phase and identified prognostic factors for response and outcomes. The achievement of a prior cytogenetic response on imatinib or on second-line therapy were the only independent predictors for the achievement of complete cytogenetic responses on third-line therapy. Younger age and the achievement of a cytogenetic response on second line were the only independent predictors for overall survival (OS). At 3 months, the 9 patients who had achieved a cytogenetic response had better 30-month probabilities of complete cytogenetic responses and OS than the patients who had failed to do so. Factors measurable before starting treatment with third line therapy and cytogenetic responses at 3 months can accurately predict subsequent outcome and thus guide clinical decisions.

Two-Year Consolidation By Nilotinib Is Associated with Successful Treatment Free Remission in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia with MR4.5: Subgroup Analysis from STAT2 Trial in Japan

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 1889-1889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naoto Takahashi ◽  
Chiaki Nakaseko ◽  
Kaichi Nishiwaki ◽  
Hisashi Wakita
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Treatment Free Remission

Abstract Background Nilotinib (NIL) is a second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that exhibits significant efficacy as first- or second-line treatment in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Superior rates of deeper molecular responses (DMR) were achieved with NIL vs. imatinib (IM) in patients newly diagnosed with CML in chronic phase (CML-CP) in the ENESTnd trial. In addition, the ENESTcmr study demonstrated that switching to NIL after a minimum of 2 years on IM led to increased rates of DMR vs. remaining on IM. Switching to NIL treatment for 2 years safely led to MR4,5 (BCR-ABLIS…0.0032%) in 47.5% of patients with major molecular response (MMR) on long-term IM therapy in our STAT1 trial. Recently, treatment free remission (TFR) was proposed as one of the goals in CML treatment. Indeed, prospective trials suggest that IM therapy may be safely and successfully discontinued in 40% of CML patients with MR4.5. STAT2 is the first study to evaluate the efficacy of two-year consolidation by NIL for successful TFR in patients with CML-CP who had achieved MR4.5. Before enrolling in STAT2, some patients were treated by not only IM but also NIL because of MMR but no MR4.5 after IM therapy, and some patients changed over from STAT1 to STAT2. Here, we present the results of the subgroup analysis from STAT2 based on the prior treatments at the time of entry into the study. Methods In the STAT2 trial, patients who achieved MR4.5 on IM front line therapy (subgroup 1; SG1) or NIL second line therapy after IM therapy (subgroup 2; SG2) were eligible and NIL was given twice daily at the dose of 600 mg/day for 2 years in consolidation phase. The primary endpoint of STAT2 was the proportion of patients with successful TFR, defined as no confirmed loss of MR4.5 (2 consecutive IS RQ-PCR tests), within the first 12 months of TFR phase. Thirty-five institutions in STAT study group participated. The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was signed by all patients according to institutional guidelines. The study was approved by all institutional review boards and registered with UMIN-CTR (000005904). Results Between July 2011 and December 2012, 96 patients were enrolled in STAT2. Among 96 patients, 50 patients were treated by IM first line only as prior therapy (SG1). On the other hand, 40 patients were treated by IM first line and NIL second line including 21 patients who changed over from STAT1 to STAT2 because they achieved MR4.5 (SG2). Six patients were excluded in this analysis because second generation TKIs were taken as a first line therapy. Among patients treated by NIL for 2 years in this study, 40/50 (80%; 95% CI, 68.4%-88.7%) in SG1 and 33/40 (82.5%; 95% CI, 69.6%-91.5%) in SG2 entered the TFR phase, respectively. The median age was 54.5 years in SG1 and 56.0 years in SG2. The ratio of men to women was 26:14 in SG1 and 18:15 in SG2. The total duration of TKI treatment was 110 months for the SG1 with a median of 86 months of IM, and 24 months of NIL, and 93 months in SG2 with a median of 62 months of IM, and 31 months of NIL,, respectively. All patients achieved MR4.5 at the time of entry into the study and the median time to MR4.5 was 47 months in SG1 and 60 months in SG2.The proportion of patients who maintained TFR at 12 months after stopping NIL was similar across the 2 subgroups: 25/40 (62.5%; 95% CI, 48.3%-77.3%) in SG1, and 23/33 (69.7%; 95% CI, 54.0%-82.5%) in SG2. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis of TFR survival showed that in the 2 subgroups, the majority of events occurred within the first 6 months after stopping NIL (Figure 1). There were no significant differences between these 2 subgroups. Conclusion After two-year consolidation by NIL of CML-CP patients who achieved MR4.5, the TFR rate was 67.9% (90%CI: 58.2% to 76.6%) at 12 months in the STAT2 trial. In the present analysis looking at the prior TKI exposure, the TFR rate was similar in patients treated with IM first line only or who switched from IM to NIL before entering the study, despite the fact that the treatment duration of switched patients was slightly shorter. These findings suggest that two-year consolidation by NIL is associated with successful TFR in CML with MR4.5 that was achieved with IM alone or after switching to NIL. Figure Kaplan-Meiercurve of TFR survival in the 2 subgroups based onthe prior treatmentsbefore two-year consolidation by NIL, IM first line only as prior therapy (subgroup1) and IM first line and NIL second line (subgroup2). Figure. Kaplan-Meiercurve of TFR survival in the 2 subgroups based onthe prior treatmentsbefore two-year consolidation by NIL, IM first line only as prior therapy (subgroup1) and IM first line and NIL second line (subgroup2). Disclosures Takahashi: PFIZER: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; NOVARTIS PHARMA: Honoraria, Research Funding. Nakaseko:BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; PFIZER: Honoraria, Research Funding; NOVARTIS: Honoraria. Nishiwaki:Novartis PHARMA: Research Funding.

Third-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International mRCC Database Consortium.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 430-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Yick Chin Heng ◽  
Connor Wells ◽  
Frede Donskov ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Jae-Lyun Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Therapy Initiation ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line

430 Background: Third-line targeted therapy efficacy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is not well characterized and many funding bodies do not provide reimbursement for it. Methods: The International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) consists of consecutive patient series from 25 cancer centers. It was queried for specific sequences of targeted therapy and third-line therapy. Kaplan Meier estimates were used for survival. Cox proportional hazards models were used to adjust hazard ratios for confounders. Patients that stopped second-line therapy were divided into two groups: those that went onto third-line therapy and those did not. Results: 4,050 patients were treated with first-line targeted therapy, of which 2,011 (49.6%) had second-line therapy and 879 (21.7%) had third-line targeted therapy. The most common third-line therapies were everolimus 25%, sorafenib 14%, sunitinib 13%, temsirolimus 11%, pazopanib 10%, and axitinib 6%. IMDC prognostic groups at third-line therapy initiation were 6% favorable risk, 67% intermediate risk, and 27% poor risk. Overall response rate for third-line therapy was 10.5% and 50.9% had stable disease in those patients that were evaluable. Median PFS was 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.5-5.7) and median OS from third-line therapy initiation was 12.0 months (95% CI, 10.7-12.9). Patients stopping second-line therapy that move on to third-line therapy vs. those that do not receive third line therapy have a median OS from stopping second-line therapy of 13.1 vs. 2.3 mons (p<0.0001). When adjusted for second-line IMDC prognostic criteria and KPS at second-line treatment cessation, patients who do receive third-line therapy have a HR of death of 0.41 (95% CI, 0.32-0.52; p<0.0001) compared to those that do not receive third-line therapy. This may be in part due to patient selection. To further limit bias, when excluding patients that live less than 3 months after second-line therapy cessation, the adjusted HR was similar. Conclusions: Third-line targeted therapy has demonstrated activity and is prevalent in use. Further studies are required to determine appropriate sequencing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document