Dataset Information

Second- or third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia in general population: Is there a real benefit?

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Since 2009, multiple randomized trials have shown faster and deeper responses in CML patients treated with new-generation TKI (NG-TKI) compared to those treated with imatinib (IM). Are the same results observed in the general population?

Materials and methods

Patients were identified from the three French hematological malignancies population-based registries. All CML patients (ICD-O-3: 9875/3) diagnosed between 2006 and 2016 and resided in registries areas were included. The TKI generation effect on achievement of MMR in first-line therapy was assessed through a multivariate competitive risk analysis. An alluvial plot described the pathways leading to death.

Results

In total, 507 CML patients received TKI in first-line treatment, 22% were enrolled in a clinical trial. After adjustment, NG-TKI patients were significantly more likely to achieve MMR during first-line therapy than IM patients (HR: 1.88 CI_95% [1.35-2.61]). At the end of follow-up, 212 patients were still in first-line therapy (46 of them died), 203 switched to second-line (43 subsequently died), 26 were on TFR from first-line (4 subsequently died), and 20 stopped their treatment (16 subsequently died).

Discussion

In this comprehensive real-life setting, the results were consistent with clinical trials. The results are not sufficient to conclude that a NG-TKI treatment is superior with regard to these patients, despite indications regarding differences between the TKI generation effect on survival and tolerance.

SUBMITTER: Canet J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8525157 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Second- or third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia in general population: Is there a real benefit?

Canet Jim J Cony-Makhoul Pascale P Orazio Sébastien S Cornet Edouard E Troussard Xavier X Maynadié Marc M Étienne Gabriel G Monnereau Alain A

Cancer medicine 20210922 20

<h4>Introduction</h4>Since 2009, multiple randomized trials have shown faster and deeper responses in CML patients treated with new-generation TKI (NG-TKI) compared to those treated with imatinib (IM). Are the same results observed in the general population?<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Patients were identified from the three French hematological malignancies population-based registries. All CML patients (ICD-O-3: 9875/3) diagnosed between 2006 and 2016 and resided in registries areas were inclu ...[more]

PMID: 34551198

Similar Datasets

Project description:Regardless of line of therapy, treatment goals in chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) are: avoid progression to accelerated phase or blast crisis CML such that patients achieve a life expectancy comparable with that of the general population; avoid adverse events (AEs); and restore and maintain quality of life. The most important prognostic factor for achieving these goals is response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) at key milestones. For patients failing a TKI, a treatment change is mandatory to limit the risk of progression and death. There is currently no precise guideline for patients that fail a second-generation TKI, and there is a paucity of data to guide clinical decision making in this setting. There is, therefore, an unmet need for practical and actionable guidance on how to manage patients who fail a second-generation TKI. Although the term 'failure' includes patients failing for resistance or intolerance, the focus of this paper is failure of a second-generation TKI because of resistance. CML patients who fail their first second-generation TKI for true resistance need a more potent therapy. In these patients, the key issues to consider are the relative appropriateness of early allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or the use of a further TKI. Selection of the next line of treatment after second-generation TKI resistance should be individualized and must be based on patient-specific factors including cytogenetics, mutation profile, comorbidities, age, previous history of AEs with prior TKI therapy, and risk profile for AEs on specific TKIs. This expert opinion paper is not in conflict with existing recommendations, but instead represents an evolution of previous notions, based on new data, insights, and clinical experience. We review the treatment options for patients resistant to second-generation TKI therapy and provide our clinical opinions and guidance on key considerations for treatment decision making.

Project description:BackgroundPonatinib and asciminib are approved for third-line therapy in chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) and are the only drugs approved for patients with the T315I mutation in the United States. In Europe, only ponatinib is approved for patients with the T315I mutation.MethodsClinical trials evaluating ponatinib or asciminib in patients with relapsed and refractory (R/R) CP-CML who failed one or more second-generation TKIs or had the T315I mutation were identified in a systematic review of medical literature databases. A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) analysis with individual patient-level data with ponatinib was used to balance baseline characteristics between ponatinib and asciminib groups. After matching, the response rate was calculated using the MAIC weight for each patient and the difference in response rate was calculated using a two-independent proportion Z-test. Cumulative rates of BCR::ABL1 IS ≤1% and major molecular response (MMR) in patients without baseline response were compared. Patients were further stratified by T315I mutation status.ResultsThe MAIC included four trials (ponatinib: NCT02467270, NCT01207440; asciminib: NCT02081378, NCT03106779). In patients without baseline response of BCR::ABL1 IS ≤1%, the adjusted BCR::ABL1 IS ≤1% rate difference with ponatinib vs. asciminib was 9.33% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79%-17.86%; adjusted MMR rate difference: 6.84% [95% CI: -0.95%-14.62%]) by 12 months in favor of ponatinib. In patients with the T315I mutation, adjusted BCR::ABL1 IS ≤1% rate difference with ponatinib vs. asciminib was 43.54% (95% CI: 22.20%-64.87%; adjusted MMR rate difference: 47.37% [95% CI: 28.72%-66.02%]) by 12 months.ConclusionAfter key baseline characteristics adjustment, cumulative BCR::ABL1 IS ≤1% and MMR rates were statistically higher with ponatinib than asciminib in patients without a baseline response in most of the comparisons by 12 months. Favorable efficacy outcomes observed in ponatinib vs. asciminib were consistently stronger in the T315I mutation subgroup.

Dataset Information

Second- or third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia in general population: Is there a real benefit?

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Second- or third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia in general population: Is there a real benefit?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets