Nilotinib versus imatinib for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase, Philadelphia chromosome-positive, chronic myeloid leukaemia: 24-month minimum follow-up of the phase 3 randomised ENESTnd trial.
Nilotinib has shown greater efficacy than imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) in chronic phase after a minimum follow-up of 12 months. We present data from the Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in clinical Trials-newly diagnosed patients (ENESTnd) study after a minimum follow-up of 24 months.
ENESTnd was a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised study. Adult patients were eligible if they had been diagnosed with chronic phase, Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML within the previous 6 months. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive nilotinib 300 mg twice a day, nilotinib 400 mg twice a day, or imatinib 400 mg once a day, all administered orally, by use of a computer-generated randomisation schedule, using permuted blocks, and stratified according to Sokal score. Efficacy results are reported for the intention-to-treat population. The primary endpoint was major molecular response at 12 months, defined as BCR-ABL transcript levels on the International Scale (BCR-ABL(IS)) of 0·1% or less by real-time quantitative PCR in peripheral blood. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00471497.
282 patients were randomly assigned to receive nilotinib 300 mg twice daily, 281 to receive nilotinib 400 mg twice daily, and 283 to receive imatinib. By 24 months, significantly more patients had a major molecular response with nilotinib than with imatinib (201 [71%] with nilotinib 300 mg twice daily, 187 [67%] with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily, and 124 [44%] with imatinib; p<0·0001 for both comparisons). Significantly more patients in the nilotinib groups achieved a complete molecular response (defined as a reduction of BCR-ABL(IS) levels to ≤0·0032%) at any time than did those in the imatinib group (74 [26%] with nilotinib 300 mg twice daily, 59 [21%] with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily, and 29 [10%] with imatinib; p<0·0001 for nilotinib 300 mg twice daily vs imatinib, p=0·0004 for nilotinib 400 mg twice daily vs imatinib). There were fewer progressions to accelerated or blast phase on treatment, including clonal evolution, in the nilotinib groups than in the imatinib group (two with nilotinib 300 mg twice daily, five with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily, and 17 with imatinib; p=0·0003 for nilotinib 300 mg twice daily vs imatinib, p=0·0089 for nilotinib 400 mg twice daily vs imatinib). At 24 months, survival was comparable in all treatment groups, but fewer CML-related deaths had occurred in both the nilotinib groups than in the imatinib group (five with nilotinib 300 mg twice daily, three with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily, and ten with imatinib). Overall, the only grade 3 or 4 non-haematological adverse events that occurred in at least 2·5% of patients were headache (eight [3%] with nilotinib 300 mg twice daily, four [1%] with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily, and two [<1%] with imatinib) and rash (two [<1%], seven [3%], and five [2%], respectively). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was more common with imatinib than with either dose of nilotinib (33 [12%] with nilotinib 300 mg twice daily, 30 [11%] with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily, and 59 [21%] with imatinib). Serious adverse events were reported in eight additional patients in the second year of the study (four with nilotinib 300 mg twice daily, three with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily, and one with imatinib).
Nilotinib continues to show better efficacy than imatinib for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed CML in chronic phase. These results support nilotinib as a first-line treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed disease.
Novartis.
Kantarjian HM
，Hochhaus A
，Saglio G
，De Souza C
，Flinn IW
，Stenke L
，Goh YT
，Rosti G
，Nakamae H
，Gallagher NJ
，Hoenekopp A
，Blakesley RE
，Larson RA
，Hughes TP
... -
《-》
Asciminib add-on to imatinib demonstrates sustained high rates of ongoing therapy and deep molecular responses with prolonged follow-up in the ASC4MORE study.
Up to 65% of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who are treated with imatinib do not achieve sustained deep molecular response, which is required to attempt treatment-free remission. Asciminib is the only approved BCR::ABL1 inhibitor that Specifically Targets the ABL Myristoyl Pocket. This unique mechanism of action allows asciminib to be combined with adenosine triphosphate-competitive tyrosine kinase inhibitors to prevent resistance and enhance efficacy. The phase II ASC4MORE trial investigated the strategy of adding asciminib to imatinib in patients who have not achieved deep molecular response with imatinib.
In ASC4MORE, 84 patients with CML in chronic phase not achieving deep molecular response after ≥ 1 year of imatinib therapy were randomized to asciminib 40 or 60 mg once daily (QD) add-on to imatinib 400 mg QD, continued imatinib 400 mg QD, or switch to nilotinib 300 mg twice daily.
More patients in the asciminib 40- and 60-mg QD add-on arms (19.0% and 28.6%, respectively) achieved MR4.5 (BCR::ABL1 ≤ 0.0032% on the International Scale) at week 48 (primary endpoint) than patients in the continued imatinib (0.0%) and switch to nilotinib (4.8%) arms. Fewer patients discontinued asciminib 40- and 60-mg QD add-on treatment (14.3% and 23.8%, respectively) than imatinib (76.2%, including crossover patients) and nilotinib (47.6%). Asciminib add-on was tolerable, with rates of AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation less than those with nilotinib, although higher than those with continued imatinib (as expected in these patients who had already been tolerating imatinib for ≥ 1 year). No new or worsening safety signals were observed with asciminib add-on vs the known asciminib monotherapy safety profile.
Overall, these results support asciminib add-on as a treatment strategy to help patients with CML in chronic phase stay on therapy to safely achieve rapid and deep response, although further investigation is needed before this strategy is incorporated into clinical practice.
NCT03578367.
Hughes TP
，Saglio G
，Geissler J
，Kim DW
，Lomaia E
，Mayer J
，Turkina A
，Kapoor S
，Cardoso AP
，Nieman B
，Quenet S
，Cortes JE
... -
《Journal of Hematology & Oncology》
Ponatinib versus imatinib for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukaemia: an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.
Ponatinib has shown potent activity against chronic myeloid leukaemia that is resistant to available treatment, although it is associated with arterial occlusion. We investigated whether this activity and safety profile would result in superior outcomes compared with imatinib in previously untreated patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia.
The Evaluation of Ponatinib versus Imatinib in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (EPIC) study was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of ponatinib, compared with imatinib, in newly diagnosed patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia. Patients from 106 centres in 21 countries were randomly assigned (1:1, with stratification by Sokal score at diagnosis) using an interactive voice and web response system to receive oral ponatinib (45 mg) or imatinib (400 mg) once daily until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other criteria for withdrawal were met. Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age, within 6 months of diagnosis, and Philadelphia chromosome-positive by cytogenetic assessment, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had not previously been treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The primary endpoint was major molecular response at 12 months. Patients who remained on study and had molecular assessments at specified timepoints were studied at those timepoints. Safety analyses included all treated patients, as per study protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01650805.
Between Aug 14, 2012, and Oct 9, 2013, 307 patients were randomly assigned to receive ponatinib (n=155) or imatinib (n=152). The trial was terminated early, on Oct 17, 2013, following concerns about vascular adverse events observed in patients given ponatinib in other trials. Trial termination limited assessment of the primary endpoint of major molecular response at 12 months, as only 13 patients in the imatinib group and ten patients in the ponatinib group could be assessed at this timepoint; the proportion of patients achieving a major molecular response at 12 months did not differ significantly between the two groups (eight [80%] of ten patients given ponatinib and five [38%] of 13 patients given imatinib; p=0·074). 11 (7%) of 154 patients given ponatinib and three (2%) of 152 patients given imatinib had arterial occlusive events (p=0·052); arterial occlusive events were designated serious in ten (6%) of 154 patients given ponatinib and in one (1%) of 152 patients given imatinib (p=0·010). The data monitoring committee criterion for risk assessment (significant difference in serious grade 3 or 4 ischaemic events between groups) was not met (five [3%] of 154 vs one [1%] of 152; p=0·21). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events observed in more than 5% of patients in the ponatinib group were increased lipase (22 [14%] of 154 vs three [2%] of 152 with imatinib), thrombocytopenia (19 [12%] of 154 vs ten [7%] of 152 with imatinib), rash (ten [6%] of 154 vs two [1%] of 152 with imatinib). In the imatinib group, grade 3 or 4 adverse events observed in more than 5% of patients were neutropenia (12 [8%] of 152 vs five [3%] of 154 with ponatinib) and thrombocytopenia (ten [7%] of 152 vs 19 [12%] of 154 with ponatinib). Serious adverse events that occurred in three or more patients given ponatinib were pancreatitis (n=5), atrial fibrillation (n=3), and thrombocytopenia (n=3). No serious adverse event occurred in three or more patients given imatinib.
The efficacy of ponatinib treatment of newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia compared with imatinib could not be assessed due to trial termination, but preliminary data suggest there might be benefit, although with more arterial occlusive events than with imatinib at the doses studied. Because the EPIC trial was terminated early, efficacy of ponatinib in this setting remains to be established.
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals.
Lipton JH
，Chuah C
，Guerci-Bresler A
，Rosti G
，Simpson D
，Assouline S
，Etienne G
，Nicolini FE
，le Coutre P
，Clark RE
，Stenke L
，Andorsky D
，Oehler V
，Lustgarten S
，Rivera VM
，Clackson T
，Haluska FG
，Baccarani M
，Cortes JE
，Guilhot F
，Hochhaus A
，Hughes T
，Kantarjian HM
，Shah NP
，Talpaz M
，Deininger MW
，EPIC investigators
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
