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
... -
《-》
Deep Molecular Response Rate in Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Eligibility to Discontinuation Related to Time to Response and Different Frontline TKI in the Experience of the Gimema Labnet CML National Network.
In the last decade, TKIs improved the overall survival (OS) of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients who achieved a deep and sustained molecular response (DMR, defined as stable MR4 and MR4.5). Those patients may attempt therapy discontinuation. In our analysis, we report the differences in eligibility criteria due to time of response and different TKI used as frontline treatment analyzed in a large cohort of CP-CML patients.
Data were exported by LabNet CML, a network founded by GIMEMA in 2014. The network standardized and harmonized the molecular methodology among 51 laboratories distributed all over Italy for the diagnosis and molecular residual disease (MRD) monitoring.
Out of 1777 patients analyzed, 774 had all evaluable timepoints (3, 6, and 12 months). At 3 months, 40 patients obtained ≥MR4: of them 14 (3.6%) with imatinib, 8 (5.8%) with dasatinib, and 18 (7.4%) with nilotinib (P = .093); at 6 months, 146 patients were in MR4: 42 (11%) with imatinib, 38 (28%) with dasatinib, and 66 (27%) with nilotinib (P < .001). At 12 months, 231 patients achieved a DMR: 85 (22%) with imatinib, 55 (40%) with dasatinib and 91 (38%) with nilotinib (P < .001). Achieving at least ≥MR2 at 3 months, was predictive of a DMR at any timepoint of observation: with imatinib 67% versus 30% of patients with <MR2, with dasatinib 66% versus 28% of patients with <MR2, and with nilotinib 75% versus 30% of patients with < MR2 (P < .001). At the same time point, achieving at least ≥MR3 is even more predictive of a DMR at any timepoint: 89% versus 38% of patients with <MR3 with imatinib (P < .001), 84% versus 40% of patients with <MR3 with dasatinib (P < .001), and 89% versus 49% of patients with <MR3 with nilotinib (P < .001). Of 908 patients who reached a DMR, 461 (51%) lost it: the loss of response after >2 years was significant for patients who at 3 months had ≥MR2 (18% vs. 9.9% of pts with <MR2, P = .038).
In conclusion, reaching ≥MR2 and a MR3 at 3 months it seems predictive of a DMR at any time point. Considering the prerequisite for a discontinuation with a sustained DMR only a minority of patients can be eligible for the discontinuation, regardless the frontline treatment received.
Breccia M
，Cucci R
，Marsili G
，Castagnetti F
，Galimberti S
，Izzo B
，Sorà F
，Soverini S
，Messina M
，Piciocchi A
，Bonifacio M
，Cilloni D
，Iurlo A
，Martinelli G
，Rosti G
，Stagno F
，Fazi P
，Vignetti M
，Pane F
... -
《-》
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》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
