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 <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 <0.1% IS) rate at 12 months in all treated patients is significantly different (p<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.

Maintaining Imatinib ≥600 Mg Daily in the First 12 Months of Chronic Phase CML Treatment Is Associated with Superior Event-Free Survival at 5 Years.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 1125-1125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P Osborn ◽  
Susan Branford ◽  
Deborah L White ◽  
John F Seymour ◽  
Ruth Columbus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Blast Crisis ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Cytogenetic Response ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Event Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Event Rates

Abstract Abstract 1125 Poster Board I-147 The Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group conducted a trial (TIDEL I) in 103 patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase CML, using imatinib 600 mg/day with dose escalation to 800 mg/day for suboptimal response. This was defined as failure to achieve (1) complete haematological response (CHR) at 3 months, (2) major cytogenetic response (MCR) at 6 months, (3) complete cytogenetic response (CCR) or molecular equivalent at 9 months, or (4) less than 0.01% (IS) BCR-ABL by RQ-PCR at 12 months. Here we report the outcomes with all surviving patients having been treated for at least 60 months. We aimed to determine whether the patient outcome at 60 months was predicted by the molecular response within the first 18 months of imatinib therapy. The outcomes for patients maintaining a dose of imatinib of ≥600 mg/day in the first 12 months was compared to those who were on a reduced dose for at least part of this time. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as death from any cause, accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC), and loss of CHR, MCR or CCR. The 103 patients included 66 males and 37 females with a median (±SD) age of 49 (±14) years. All patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-2 at enrolment. The 5-year EFS was 71%, transformation (AP/BC) free survival (TFS) was 95%, and overall survival was 87%. Of the 14 patients who died, 3 died in blast crisis, 2 from transplant-related complications, 8 from CML-unrelated causes, and the cause of death of 1 patient was unavailable. The annual rates of progression to AP/BC over 5 years were 3%, 1%, 0%, 1%, and 0%, while annual event rates were 13%, 8%, 8%, 1%, and 4%. CCR was achieved by 89% of patients by 60 months, while 72% achieved a major molecular response (MMR) by this time. In the first 12 months of treatment, 55% of patients maintained an imatinib dose of ≥600 mg/day (mean ±SD dose = 604 ±10 mg/day), while 45% were on <600 mg/day for at least part of this time (mean ±SD dose = 511 ±100 mg/day). EFS at 60 months was significantly higher in patients taking ≥600 mg/day compared with those who had been dose-reduced to <600 mg/day (89% vs 56%, P<0.001). Annual event rates for the ≥600 mg/day group were 6%, 2%, 2%, 0%, and 2%, while annual event rates for those on <600 mg/day were 14%, 16%, 16%, 8%, and 4%. By 60 months, 96% of patients who had been on ≥600 mg/day within the first 12 months had achieved CCR, while only 80% of those who had been on <600 mg/day had achieved this milestone (P<0.001). Log rank analysis of the achievement of MMR was also significant (P=0.03). Overall survival and TFS after 12 months were both similar between the dosing groups. There was no difference between the dosing groups' median age (50 vs 48 years, P=0.36) or Sokal score (1.04 vs 0.94, P=0.33) that may otherwise account for these results. The outcome was also determined for all patients dependent on the BCR-ABL levels at various assessment timepoints. Patients with a BCR-ABL level of <10% (IS) at 6 months (n=92) had an EFS of 78% at 60 months, while all of those with a level >10% (IS) (n=8) had an event (P<0.001). Patients with a level of ≤1% (IS) at 12 months (equivalent to CCR) (n=81) had an EFS of 75% compared with 25% (n=13) for those with levels >1% (IS) (P<0.001). At 18 months, a level ≤0.1% (IS) (n=58) conferred an EFS of 88%, while those who had failed to attain this depth of response (n=30) had an EFS of 60%. There was a significant difference in EFS between those who had achieved an MMR at 18 months and those who had achieved a CCR, but no MMR (88% vs 67%, P=0.03). In conclusion, our data suggest that patients maintaining a dose of ≥600mg in the first 12 months of imatinib therapy are more likely to achieve CCR and MMR, and superior EFS compared to those with a lower dose. This study also confirms that achieving an MMR by 18 months is associated with improved EFS. This emphasises the value of achieving a molecular response early in the treatment course, as well as adding weight to the evidence supporting the role of molecular monitoring in CML. Disclosures Branford: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. White:Novartis and Britol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Seymour:Bayer Schering: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Travel grants; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Travel Grants. Catalano:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Travel grants. Mills:Celgene Pty Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hughes:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Advisor, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Advisor, Honoraria, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Ponatinib and Chemotherapy in Young Adults with De Novo Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Results of Ponalfil Clinical Trial after Completion of Recruitment

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 29-30
Author(s):  
Josep-Maria Ribera ◽  
Olga García ◽  
Pau Montesinos ◽  
Pilar Martinez ◽  
Jordi Esteve ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽  
Philadelphia Chromosome ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Event Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Allogeneic Hsct ◽  
Central Artery

Background and objective. The combination of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and chemotherapy (intensive, attenuated or minimal) has improved the prognosis of patients (pts) with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ALL). The combination of HyperCVAD and ponatinib has improved the molecular response and survival compared with other combinations of chemotherapy with first or second generation TKI (Jabbour E, et al, Lancet Haematol. 2018; 5:e618-e627). The Spanish PETHEMA group conducted the phase 2 PONALFIL trial, which incorporates ponatinib to the same induction and consolidation schedule of the ALL Ph08 trial (Ribera JM et al. Cancer 2019;125:2810-2817) The results of this trial after completed recruitment are herein reported. Patients and method. The PONALFIL trial (NCT02776605) combined ponatinib (30 mg/d) and induction chemotherapy (vincristine, daunorubicin and prednisone) followed by consolidation (high-dose methotrexate, ARA-C, mercaptopurine, etoposide) and allogeneic HSCT. TKI use as maintenance was only scheduled for pts with persistence or reappearance of MRD. By July 2020 the 30 scheduled pts were recruited. The response to therapy (complete morphological [CR], molecular [complete, CMR or major, MMR] after induction and before allogeneic HSCT) (assessed by centralized BCR-ABL/ABL ratio),event-free survival (EFS), overall survival [OS]) and toxicity are herein analyzed. Results. Median age was 50 (20-59) years and 14/30 pts were female. One pt showed CNS involvement at diagnosis. ECOG score at diagnosis was &lt;2 in 86% of pts. Median of WBC count was 6.4 (0.6-359.3) x109/L, Hb 90 (63-145) g/L, platelets 38 (11-206) x109/L. The immunologic phenotype was common in 26 cases, with molecular isoform p190 in 20 patients (67%), p210 in 9 (30%) and p230 in 1 (3%). CR was attained 26/26 patients (100%) (4 are still on induction therapy), with CMR in 11/26 cases (42%), MMR in 6/26 (23%) and no molecular response in 9/26 (35%)).Two patients withdrew the trial (thrombosis of the central retina artery and severe intestinal infection, one case each). Consolidation was given to 24 patients, 2/24 are receiving consolidation and 22 patients received allogeneic HSCT (14 in CMR, 6 in MMR, 2 without molecular response). No relapses before HSCT were detected. No transplant-related mortality was observed to date, but 1 patient withdrew the trial by severe GVHD. Ponatinib was given after HSCT in 4 pts due to loss of molecular response. Three pts relapsed after HSCT, one of them after documented loss of molecular response. All pts are alive (median follow-up of 4.5 months, range 0.5-26.2.2). The EFS probability at 30 months was 91% (79%, 100%) (Figure 1). One hundred and two adverse events (AE) have been registered in 20 patients, 25 of whom were severe (SAE) and occurred in 14 patients, prompting to withdrawn of the trial in 3 (thrombosis of the central artery of the retina, severe bowel infection, grade IV aGVHD, one case each). The most frequent AE were hematologic (26%), gastrointestinal (15%), infections (10%), hepatic (8%) and cutaneous (5%). Cardiovascular events occurred in 2 patients (angor pectoris and thrombosis of central artery of the retina, one case each). Conclusions. The preliminary results of the PONALFIL trial after recruitment completed show a high short-term antileukemic efficacy with acceptable toxicity profile. Supported in part by grant 2017 SGR288 (GRC) Generalitat de Catalunya and "La Caixa" Foundation. Figure 1. Event free survival (EFS) of the whole series. Figure 1 Disclosures Ribera: Pfizer, Amgen, Ariad, Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer, Amgen: Research Funding. Martinez-Lopez:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen-cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Garcia-Sanz:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding.

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.

Outcome of Patients with Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive (Ph+) Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) with Relapse After Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) Therapy

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 1518-1518
Author(s):  
Hun Ju Lee ◽  
Susan O'Brien ◽  
Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽  
Farhad Ravandi ◽  
Stefan Faderl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cytogenetic Response ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Major Molecular Response ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Cns Relapse ◽  
Complete Hematologic Response

Abstract Abstract 1518 Background: Treatment with TKIs has greatly improved the outcome of patients with Ph+ ALL. However, many patients treated with TKI-based therapy eventually have a relapse. The response to salvage therapy and long-term outcomes of these patients are unknown. Aims: Describe the outcomes of patients with Ph+ ALL with resistance to or relapse after frontline TKI-based chemotherapy. Methods: We analyzed the outcome of patients who were treated in clinical trials at our institution between February 2001 and July 2008 with TKI-based chemotherapy for newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL who had refractory or relapsed disease. Results: One hundred thirteen patients were treated with frontline hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and dexamethasone (HCVAD) plus imatinib (HCVAD+I; n=54) or HCVAD plus dasatinib (HCVAD+D; n=59). Of these, 35 (31%) experienced primary resistance (n=1) or relapse (n=34). The median age was 51 years [range (r): 20–85]; 12 patients (34%) were older than 60 years. Median follow-up was 21.1 mo (r: 4.2–56.7). Median white blood cell and platelet counts at diagnosis were 14.4 × 109/L (r: 1.2–292.9) and 48 × 109/L (r: 4–425), respectively. White blood cell count was >30 × 109/L in 13 patients (37%). Median peripheral and bone marrow blast percentages were 53% (r: 0–97%) and 80% (r: 1–98%), respectively. Twenty-two patients (63%) had received HCVAD+I and 13 (37%) HCVAD+D. Twenty-three patients (66%) had experienced first complete remission (CR1) with 1 cycle of induction. Median CR1 duration was 12 mo (r: 1.9–42). Four patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in CR1. ABL kinase domain mutations were investigated in 28 patients (80%) at relapse; 16 (57%) had mutations, including 5 (14%) with T315I (all had received HCVAD+D). Upon relapse, 31 patients received first salvage therapy (S1), 24 with chemotherapy [HCVAD+D, n=8; HCVAD+I, n=3; HCVAD+nilotinib (N), n=1; HCVAD+asparaginase (Asp), n=1; methotrexate, vincristine, Asp, and dexamethasone (MOAD), n=2; others, n=9]; 6 with a TKI only (I, n=2; D, n=1; N, n=1; others, n=2); and 1 with ASCT. Three patients were unfit for treatment. Median cycles of S1 were 2 (r: 1–8). Thirteen patients (42%) had second complete remission (CR2) (HCVAD+D, n=6; HCVAD+I, n=2; HCVAD+N, n=1; HCVAD+Asp, n=1; others, n=3). Median time to CR2 was 1.5 mo (r: 0.7–8.8). Five patients underwent ASCT in CR2. Median CR2 duration was 7.3 mo (r: 1.4–36.2). Complete cytogenetic response was seen in 11 patients (35%); major molecular response (BCR-ABL/ABL ratio <0.05%) in 9 (29%); and complete molecular response in 7 (22%); and complete hematologic response in 15 (48%). Times to complete cytogenetic response and complete molecular response were 1.3 mo (r: 0.7–10.6) and 3 mo (r: 1.5–8.7), respectively. Seven patients had second relapse. Fifteen patients (7 relapse, 8 refractory) received second salvage therapy (S2) with systemic chemotherapy (MOAD, n=2; phase I/single-agent TKI, n=8; others, n=5); 1 patient had solitary central nervous system (CNS) relapse treated with intrathecal cytarabine and methotrexate. CR3 was obtained in 1 patient, the patient with sole CNS relapse. Median disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) after S1 were 6.5 mo (r: 0.5–45) and 7.3 mo (r: 1.4–36.2), respectively. At last follow-up, 2 patients (6%) were alive and 33 had died, 11 (33%) of infectious complications, 5 (15%) of organ failure, 3 (9%) of bleeding complications, 2 (6%) of graft-versus-host disease complications, 2 (6%) of CNS relapse, and 10 (30%) of other or unknown causes. Median OS after S2 was 2.1 mo (r: 1.4–2.6). In univariate analysis, age >60 years was associated with worse OS after S1 [4.2 vs. 12.7 mo; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8 to 6.7 vs. 7.5 to 17.9 (P=0.006)]. Complete hematologic response was associated with improved OS after S1 [15.4 vs. 4.3 mo; 95% CI 9.1 to 21.8 vs. 2.5 to 6.0 (P<0.001)]. Major molecular response was associated with improved OS after S1 [18.1 vs. 5.7 mo; 95% CI 9.3 to 26.8 vs. 3.6 to 7.8 (P=0.003)]. Choice of prior TKI (HCVAD+I vs. HCVAD+D) did not significantly influence CR and OS after relapse. Conclusion: Patients with refractory or relapsed Ph+ ALL after TKI-based therapy have poor outcome, particularly those who are older or have persistent BCR/ABL transcripts. New agents are needed to improve the outcome in this population. Disclosures: Kantarjian: BMS: Research Funding. Ravandi:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Cortes:Chemgenex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Switching to Nilotinib Is Associated with Continued Deeper Molecular Responses in CML-CP Patients with Minimal Residual Disease After ≥ 2 Years On Imatinib: Enestcmr 2-Year Follow-up Results

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 694-694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy P. Hughes ◽  
Jeffrey H. Lipton ◽  
Nelson Spector ◽  
Brian Leber ◽  
Ricardo Pasquini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Minimal Residual Disease ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Molecular Responses ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Minimal Residual

Abstract Abstract 694 Background: Superior rates of deeper molecular responses were achieved with nilotinib vs imatinib in patients newly diagnosed with Philadelphia chromosome–positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) in the Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials—newly diagnosed patients (ENESTnd) trial. In addition, the 12-month (mo) analysis of the ENEST—complete molecular response (ENESTcmr) study demonstrated that switching to nilotinib after a minimum of 2 years on imatinib led to increased rates of major molecular response (MMR) and deeper molecular responses vs remaining on imatinib. Results from ENESTcmr are presented here with minimum 24 mo of patient follow-up. Methods: Patients with Ph+ CML-CP who had achieved complete cytogenetic responses but still had persistent BCR-ABL positivity by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RQ-PCR) after ≥ 2 years on imatinib were eligible. Patients (n = 207) were randomized to switch to nilotinib 400 mg twice daily (BID; n = 104) or to continue on the same dose of imatinib (400 or 600 mg once daily [QD]; n = 103). Rates of MMR, MR4 (BCR-ABL ≤ 0.01% according to the International Scale [IS], corresponding to a 4-log reduction), MR4.5 (BCR-ABL ≤ 0.0032%IS, corresponding to 4.5-log reduction), and undetectable BCR-ABL via RQ-PCR with ≥ 4.5-log sensitivity were measured. Results: Among all randomized patients (intent-to-treat population), significantly more patients treated with nilotinib continued to achieve undetectable BCR-ABL by 24 mo (32.7% on nilotinib vs 16.5% on imatinib; P =.005; Table).The difference between the arms in achievement of this endpoint increased between 1 and 2 years (from 12.4% to 16.2%). The median time to MR4.5 and undetectable BCR-ABL was also significantly faster on nilotinib than on imatinib (P = .005 and .003, respectively). Cumulative rates of MR4.5 and undetectable BCR-ABL continued to be higher with nilotinib in patients without those responses at baseline, and the difference between arms appeared to increase over time. The safety profiles for nilotinib and imatinib were consistent with prior studies. By 24 mo, no patients in either arm progressed to accelerated phase/blast crisis. No patients on nilotinib died since the 12-mo analysis; 1 patient on imatinib died from metastatic prostate cancer in follow-up after discontinuation from the study. Conclusions: Switching to nilotinib led to significantly faster, deeper molecular responses in patients with minimal residual disease on long-term imatinib therapy. Since the 12-mo analysis, rates of deep molecular response (MR4.5 and undetectable BCR-ABL) have remained significantly higher in patients who did not have the response at baseline and were switched to nilotinib (vs those remaining on imatinib). In fact, the difference in favor of nilotinib increased between 1 and 2 years. These results suggest that switching to the more potent, selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor nilotinib is beneficial in patients with minimal residual disease after long-term imatinib therapy. Achievement of these deeper molecular responses (MR4.5 and undetectable BCR-ABL) after switching to nilotinib may enable a greater proportion of CML-CP patients to be eligible for future discontinuation studies. Cumulative rates of confirmed undetectable BCR-ABL by 24 mo will be presented as the confirmation assessments for several responders were not available at the time of this analysis. Disclosures: Hughes: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; CSL: Research Funding. Lipton:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Spector:Novarits: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Leber:Novartis: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Schwarer:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: 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. Etienne:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Branford:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding. Purkayastha:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Collins:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Szczudlo:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Cervantes:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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 Long-Term Outcome of Total Therapy Regimens: Impact of Molecular Subgroups

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3309-3309
Author(s):  
Frits van Rhee ◽  
Maurizio Zangari ◽  
Carolina D. Schinke ◽  
Guido J. Tricot ◽  
Doug Steward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Event Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Cure Fraction ◽  
Research Grant

Introduction. Our TT regimens for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) incorporate novel agents into a sequential treatment program comprising induction, tandem autologous stem cell transplantation and consolidation followed by 3 years of maintenance. Herein, we report the very long-term results in a large cohort of 1986 patients treated on successive TT protocols, the most mature of which (TT1, 2, and 3a) have a median follow-up ranging from 12.8 to 23.1 yrs. Methods. TT1 (1990) was followed by TT2 (1998), which introduced Thalidomide (T) in a randomized fashion. TT3 used bortezomib (V) throughout, with TT3a (2003) and 3b (2006) having different maintenance. TT3a used in year 1 of maintenance V, T and dexamethasone (D) and in years 2 and 3 TD. TT3b introduced lenalidomide (R) during maintenance for 3 years together with V and D. TT4 (2009) only enrolled patients with GEP-defined low risk disease and randomized patients to a standard arm or light arm using a similar regimen as TT3b. TT5 (2009) was specifically designed for patients who have a high 70-gene score and employed a dose dense treatment approach. Finally, TT6 (2009) accrued previously treated, patients irrespective of GEP-defined risk using a treatment schema similar to that used in TT5. Gene expression profiling was used to assign molecular classifications. These include HY (hyperdiploidy), LB (gene expression patterns frequently seen in patients with fewer focal bone lesions), MF (spikes in MAF and MAFB expression), MS (hyperactivation of MMSET +/- FGFR3), PR (over-expression of proliferation-related genes), and CD-1 or CD-2 (different forms of aberrant CCND1 and CCND3 expression). A mixed parametric cure model was used to estimate the proportion of patients with long-term, event-free survival, or the "cure fraction." When using progression free survival (PFS) in the model, the cure fraction is the percent of patients who are likely to never experience relapse based on trends in the survival times that have been observed. When using complete remission duration (CRD) in the model, the model estimates the cure fraction among patients who achieved complete response. Results. The median follow-up on the entire cohort patients was 11.6 years (range: 0.0-27.6) The median overall survival was 9.2 years, with 79.3% and 48.0% having an event-free survival greater than 3 and 10 years, respectively. Overall, patients with GEP70 low risk MM had estimated PFS and CRD cure fractions of 20.1% and 32.7%, respectively. GEP70 high risk MM patients fared much worse with estimated cure fractions of only 8.2 and 11.0%. The estimated PFS- and-CRD based cure fractions increased over time with successive protocols (PFS-cure: 6.0% in TT1 to 27.7% in TT4; CRD-cure: 9.3 to 49.8%). These cure fractions were consistent with the early plateau in the PFS and CRD curves seen at 9 years in TT4 patients. The highest cure fractions were seen in the CD-1 molecular group (34.9 and 40.3%) with intermediate outcomes in the HY (20.1 and 30.0%) and MS (22.8 and 33.5%) groups (Table 1). Surprisingly, low cure fractions were observed in the LB (1.1 and 13.5%) and CD-2 groups (13.5 and 26.4%). CD-1, LB and CD-2 groups had similar 5-yr PFS rates of 60, 60 and 63% respectively, but a steady low rate of relapse was observed in the CD-2 and especially the LB group. These findings were confirmed in a 5-yr landmark analysis showing high PFS and CRD cure fractions in the CD-1 group of 62.7 and 72.3% respectively contrasting to much lower cure fractions in the CD-2 (47.2 and 49.2%) and LB (30.8 and 45.0%) groups. Conclusions. We report excellent long-term outcomes in patients with GEP70 low risk MM and cure fractions in the range of 20-30%. Patients with LB and CD-2 subgroups have lower overall cure rates, despites similar initial 5-yr PFS rates compared to the superior performing CD-1 group, which can be explained by the occurrence of late relapses. Table 1 Disclosures van Rhee: EUSA: Consultancy; Adicet Bio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Castleman Disease Collaborative Network: Consultancy. Walker:Celgene: Research Funding. Davies:Janssen, Celgene: Other: Research Grant, Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Roche, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Consultant/Advisor. Morgan:Amgen, Roche, Abbvie, Takeda, Celgene, Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Other: research grant, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody targeting myeloma

Randomised Intergroup Trial of First line Treatment for young Low-Risk Patients (<61 years) with Diffuse Large B-Cell Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (DLBCL) with a CHOP-like Regimen with or without the Anti-CD20 Antibody Rituximab – 6-Year Follow-up of the Mint Study of the Mabthera International Trial (MInT) Group

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 111-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Pfreundschuh ◽  
Evelyn Kuhnt ◽  
Lorenz Trümper ◽  
Anders Osterborg ◽  
Marek Trneny ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Good Prognosis ◽  
Event Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Bulky Disease ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Abstract 111 Background: The addition of rituximab to CHOP-21 significantly improved clinical outcome in elderly patients with DLBCL (Coiffier et al., 2002). The MInT trial, randomized young good-prognosis patients to receive a CHOP-like regimen or the same CHOP-like regimen plus rituximab, and was stopped early because of superiority of the rituximab arm, and results were published with a median follow-up of 34 months (Pfreundschuh et al., Lancet Oncology 2006; 379-91). Objective: Because the MInT study was the first study to show a survival benefit with the addition of rituximab to a CHOP-like regimen in young good-prognosis patients, extended follow-up is important to determine whether the survival benefit is maintained over time and whether a definitive effect on cure rates can be shown. Methods: In a phase III intergroup study with participating cooperative groups from 18 countries, previously untreated patients (18-60 years) with low-risk DLBCL (age-adjusted IPI 0 or 1, stages II-IV and stage I with bulky disease) were randomized to receive 6 cycles of a CHOP-like regimen (CHEMO) or the same chemotherapy plus rituximab 375 mg/m2, given on day 1 of each 3-week regimen and on days 1, 22, 43, 64, 85 and 106 of the 2-week regimens, respectively (R-CHEMO). Radiotherapy (30-40 Gy) was planned to sites of initial bulky disease and/or extranodal involvement. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS) with events defined as failure to achieve complete remission, progressive disease, relapse, death or additional therapy. The trial was powered to show a 10% difference in EFS rate after 3 years. Results: Between 05/2000 and 10/2003 a total of 823 patients were recruited of whom 396 were allocated to receive CHOP-21, 361 to CHOEP-21, 34 to MACOP-B, and 32 to PMitCEBO with or without rituximab. Toxicity, incidence of adverse events and severe adverse events in the CHEMO and the R-CHEMO arms were not significantly different. After a median follow-up of 70 (0.03-117) months, patients assigned to chemotherapy and rituximab had increased 6-year event-free survival compared with those assigned to chemotherapy alone (74.0% [95% CI 69.0–78.3] vs 55.7% [50.3-60.8]; log-rank p<0·0001), increased 6-year progression-free survival (79.9% [75.1 - 83.8%] vs 63.8% [58.2-68.8]; log-rank p<0.001) and increased overall survival (89.8% [86.0-92.6] vs 80.0% [75.3-83.9; log rank p=0.001). In a multivariate analysis event-free survival was affected by the addition of rituximab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.49, p< 0.001), age-adjusted IPI (HR 1.73, p<0.001), and bulky disease (HR 1.43, p=0.004). Similar effects were observed for OS, while PFS was affected by treatment arm (HR 0.49, p<0.001) and age-adjusted IPI (HR 1.8, p<0.001). As a consequence, a very favorable subgroup (aaIPI=0, no bulky) can be distinguished from a less favorable subgroup (aaIPI=1 and/or bulky disease) among good-prognosis patients treated with rituximab. There were 10 late (>60 months) events after CHEMO (61.4 to 96.1 months), including 4 in the very favorable subgroup, while all 8 late events (67.5 to 105.7 months) after R-CHEMO occurred in the less favorable subgroup only, and none in the very favorable subgroup. Conclusion: Addition of rituximab to a CHOP-like regimen leads to a significant improvement of the outcome in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, with significant survival benefit maintained during a 6-year follow-up. However, except in the very favorable subgroup after R-CHEMO, late relapses after 5 years occur. While reduction of treatment in a randomized study like the FLYER trial of the DSHNHL is justified, further progress, e.g. by dose densification (UNFOLDER trial of the DSHNHL) and/ or dose escalation is still warranted for the less favorable subgroup. Supported by Roche, Deutsche Krebshilfe and KML. Disclosures: Pfreundschuh: Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Trneny:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Walewski:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Pettengell:Roche: Honoraria. Jäger:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lopez-Guillermo:Roche: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Prognostication of Molecular Relapses after Dasatinib or Nilotinib Discontinuation in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML): A FI-LMC STOP 2G-TKI Study Update

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 30-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Delphine Rea ◽  
Franck E Nicolini ◽  
Michel Tulliez ◽  
Philippe Rousselot ◽  
Martine Gardembas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Blast Crisis ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
History Of ◽  
Time To Relapse ◽  
Tki Discontinuation

Background : Providing achievement and sustainability of deep molecular responses (DMR), patients (pts) taking tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) against CML may discontinue therapy. The STOP 2G-TKI observational study showed that dasatinib and nilotinib could be safely stopped and prior suboptimal response or resistance to imatinib was an adverse prognostic factor for treatment-free remission (TFR). We present updated results with a specific focus on the risk of relapse using post-baseline information during follow-up. Methods : Adult CML pts treated with dasatinib or nilotinib without a history of allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or progression to advanced phase stopped TKI provided that: (1) BCR-ABL transcripts were of the major type, (2) total TKI treatment duration was ≥36 months, (3) uMR4.5 had been achieved and maintained for ≥24 months (undetectable BCR-ABL with ≥32000 copies of ABL). Relapse was defined by loss of major molecular response (MMR: BCR-ABL IS &gt;0.1%) on a single occasion and triggered TKI reintroduction. The primary objective was TFR at 12 months. After TKI discontinuation, BCR-ABL transcripts were monitored monthly during the first 6-12 months, every 3 months during the 2nd year and then every 3-6 months. Data as of July 1, 2019 are reported in 104 pts (median follow-up 55 months (range: 6-70)). Results: Median age at inclusion was 56 years (range: 21-82) and 65.4% of pts were female. Sokal risk score was low in 49%, intermediate in 31%, high in 16% and unknown in 4%. 2G-TKIs were given after imatinib intolerance in 47% of pts, suboptimal response or resistance to imatinib in 22%, lack of DMR on imatinib in 3% and as 1st line treatment in 28%. Median duration of TKI, 2G-TKI and uMR4.5 was 74 months (range: 36-163), 49 months (range: 19-112) and 31 months (range: 24-72), respectively. Overall, 43 pts (41%) lost MMR within a median time of 5 months (range: 1-59). Overall 60-month TFR was 56% (95% CI, 45.8-66.3) but TFR probabilities increased up to 64% (95% CI: 53.3-74.8), 76.7% (95% CI, 65.9-87.5), 86.2% (95% CI; 76.3-96.2), and 92.1% (95% CI: 83.4-100) for pts still in MMR at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months, respectively (Figure 1). Prior suboptimal response or resistance to TKI was confirmed as the strongest adverse baseline prognostic factor with a 60-month TFR rate of 29.8% (95% CI; 10.8-48.7) (median TFR 12 months) versus 63.6% (95% CI; 52.1-75.2) (median not reached) in pts without such history (logrank p=0.0012). This was explained by significantly higher risk of early relapses (within 6 months but not later) in pts with prior suboptimal response or resistance to TKI (cumulative incidence of relapses by 6 months 47.8% (95% CI; 31.2-73.2) versus 20.9 (95% CI; 13.7-32) in other pts (p=0.00879)). Landmark analyses at specific time points were performed to study the prognostic value of molecular responses categories after TKI discontinuation. All pts in MMR but not deeper at 3 months relapsed by month 9 (median time to relapse 4 months) while pts in ≥MR4 (BCR-ABL IS ≤0.01%) had 12- and 60-months probabilities of 86.8% (95% CI; 79.1-94.4) and 74.9% (95% CI: 64-85.7), respectively (logrank p&lt;10-4). All pts but 1 in MMR but not deeper at 6 months relapsed (median time to relapse 12 months) while pts in ≥MR4 had 12- and 60-months probabilities of 95% (95% CI; 89.6-100) and 87.5% (95% CI: 78.7-96.2), respectively (logrank p&lt;10-4). Forty three pts restarted treatment including 1 who lost MR4.5 but not MMR and 42 who lost MMR. When treatment was reintroduced, 42 pts were in CHR and all regained MMR after a median time of 3 months (range: 1-11). The remaining pt lost MMR but not CHR 5 month after 1st line nilotinib cessation and was found in sudden myeloid blast crisis at the month 6 TKI reintroduction visit. No BCR-ABL mutation was found but an inversion of chromosome 3 at karyotyping analysis. The pt underwent ASCT after chemotherapy + ponatinib and is alive in remission 29 months later. Conclusion: 2G-TKI may be successfully stopped in CML pts with long-lasting MR4.5. Those without a history of suboptimal response or resistance have greatest chances of success. Sudden blast crisis is rare but unpredictable. Post-TKI discontinuation estimates of TFR change overtime. Together with that of molecular response type at specific time points, they represent important dynamic prognostic measures of outcome. They may also help individualizing molecular monitoring programs after TKI cessation. Disclosures Rea: Incyte Biosciences: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nicolini:Sun Pharma Ltd: Consultancy; Incyte Biosciences: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rousselot:Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Etienne:Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Biosciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Guerci:INCYTE: Consultancy, Honoraria. Legros:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte Biosciences: Honoraria, Research Funding. Coiteux:Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mahon:Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Biosciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Impact of Additional Cytogenetic Abnormalities and Complex Karyotype on Event-Free Survival in Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia: Analysis from a Single Academic Center Plus the APML4 Study

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 34-35
Author(s):  
Zachary D. Epstein-Peterson ◽  
Sridevi Rajeeve ◽  
Andriy Derkach ◽  
Jae H. Park ◽  
Eytan M. Stein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Promyelocytic Leukemia ◽  
Complex Karyotype ◽  
Event Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Cytogenetic Abnormalities

Background: Current risk stratification for patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is based solely on the presenting white blood cell count. There are conflicting data concerning the prognostic relevance of additional cytogenetic abnormalities (ACA) beyond t(15;17) and whether the presence of such abnormalities might influence treatment decisions for patients with APL. This is especially unclear among patients receiving ATO given that many existing data are from patients treated prior to incorporation of ATO into treatment paradigms. We sought to determine the prognostic importance of ACA and complex karyotype (CK) in influencing event-free survival in patients with APL. Methods: We analyzed patients with APL evaluated at our center since 2005 and patients treated in the Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group APML4 study (frontline ATRA + ATO + idarubicin,Lancet Haematology2015). We included all patients with baseline karyotype and those without karyotype but with FISH at diagnosis revealing ACA. Chart review extracted patient, disease, and clinical data. Only patients who commenced induction therapy with an ATO-based regimen were included in this analysis to ensure uniformity of the study population and applicability of results to contemporary clinical practice in APL. We also included patients deceased early in the disease course (&lt;1 month). We excluded patients with absent follow-up information given our interest in relapse and patients who relapsed prior to transferring care to our center. We defined CK as the presence of &gt;1 ACA beyond t(15;17). Coagulopathy was defined as either APTT/mean laboratory normal APTT &gt;1.5, INR &gt;1.5 (PT/mean laboratory normal PT &gt;1.5 when INR and ISI unavailable), or fibrinogen &lt;100 mg/dL. We defined events as either relapse or death. Associations between time-to event outcomes and patient and disease characteristics were assessed were calculated using univariate Cox proportional hazards models in each study separately. Fixed-effect meta analyses was used to combine estimates from both studies. Results: A total of 168 patients were included (N = 49 MSKCC, 109 APML4); 6 patients were removed from the MSKCC cohort due to relapse prior to initial visit and one from APML4 due to lack of follow-up information (Table 1). The mean age at diagnosis was 47 years in the MSKCC cohort and 43 years in the APML4. Median follow-up among survivors was 36 months (MSKCC, range 2-144) and 54 months (APML4, range 28-96); overall survival is displayed in Figure 1. Forty-nine (31%) patients' disease harbored ACA (most commonly trisomy 8 in 25 patients), and 17 CK (12% MSKCC, 10% APML4, denominator excludes one patient with single ACA by FISH). The event-free survival did not differ between ACA+ and ACA- (Table 2), but patients with +CK harbored inferior EFS (9/139 events non-CK vs. 4/17 events CK). No other clinical parameters that we queried correlated with EFS. Conclusions: In a large cohort pooled from a single-center experience and a cooperative prospective trial, the presence of an ACA beyond t(15;17) did not influence EFS in patients with APL. However, our data suggested that CK influences EFS. Further studies could collect data from other cooperative trials and/or single institutions to garner adequate power to better address the question of CK influencing EFS and confirm these preliminary findings. If a convincing signal emerges, treatment paradigms could be altered in the context of a prospective study (for example, intensifying or prolonging treatment) towards overcoming this adverse effect. Disclosures Park: Minverva:Consultancy;Kite:Consultancy, Research Funding;Amgen:Consultancy, Research Funding;Intellia:Consultancy;Artiva:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;AstraZeneca:Consultancy;Incyte:Consultancy, Research Funding;GSK:Consultancy;Juno Therapeutics:Research Funding;Autolus:Consultancy, Research Funding;Genentech/Roche:Research Funding;Fate Therapeutics:Research Funding;Servier:Consultancy, Research Funding;Takeda:Consultancy, Research Funding;Novartis:Consultancy;Allogene:Consultancy.Stein:Biotheryx:Consultancy;Bayer:Research Funding;Genentech:Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Syndax:Consultancy, Research Funding;Seattle Genetics:Consultancy;Abbvie:Consultancy;Amgen:Consultancy;Celgene Pharmaceuticals:Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding;Agios Pharmaceuticals:Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Astellas Pharmaceuticals: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, Research Funding;PTC Therapeutics:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Syros:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Daiichi-Sankyo:Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.Tallman:Bioline rx:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Amgen:Research Funding;Rafael:Research Funding;Orsenix:Research Funding;ADC Therapeutics:Research Funding;BioSight:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding;Glycomimetics:Research Funding;Novartis:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Roche:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;UpToDate:Patents & Royalties;KAHR:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Rigel:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Delta Fly Pharma:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Oncolyze:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Jazz Pharma:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Daiichi-Sankyo:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Cellerant:Research Funding;Abbvie:Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document