35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Bosutinib Versus Imatinib for Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Results From the Randomized BFORE Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Bosutinib is a potent dual SRC/ABL kinase inhibitor approved for adults with Philadelphia chromosome–positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) resistant and /or intolerant to prior therapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of bosutinib versus imatinib for first-line treatment of chronic-phase CML.

          Methods

          In this ongoing, multinational, phase III study, 536 patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 400 mg of bosutinib once daily (n = 268) or imatinib (n = 268). Per protocol, efficacy was assessed in patients who were Philadelphia chromosome–positive with typical (e13a2/e14a2) transcripts (bosutinib, n = 246; imatinib, n = 241). Patients with Philadelphia chromosome–negative–/ BCR-ABL1–positive status and those with unknown Philadelphia chromosome status and/or atypical BCR-ABL1 transcript type were excluded from this population.

          Results

          The major molecular response (MMR) rate at 12 months (primary end point) was significantly higher with bosutinib versus imatinib (47.2% v 36.9%, respectively; P = .02), as was complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) rate by 12 months (77.2% v 66.4%, respectively; P = .0075). Cumulative incidence was favorable with bosutinib (MMR: hazard ratio, 1.34; P = .0173; CCyR: hazard ratio, 1.38; P < .001), with earlier response times. Four patients (1.6%) receiving bosutinib and six patients (2.5%) receiving imatinib experienced disease progression to accelerated/blast phase. Among treated patients, 22.0% of patients receiving bosutinib and 26.8% of patients receiving imatinib discontinued treatment, most commonly for drug-related toxicity (12.7% and 8.7%, respectively). Grade ≥ 3 diarrhea (7.8% v 0.8%) and increased ALT (19.0% v 1.5%) and AST (9.7% v 1.9%) levels were more common with bosutinib. Cardiac and vascular toxicities were uncommon.

          Conclusion

          Patients who received bosutinib had significantly higher rates of MMR and CCyR and achieved responses faster than those who received imatinib. Consistent with the known safety profile, GI events and transaminase elevations were more common with bosutinib. Results indicate bosutinib may be an effective first-line treatment for chronic-phase CML.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          European LeukemiaNet recommendations for the management of chronic myeloid leukemia: 2013.

          Advances in chronic myeloid leukemia treatment, particularly regarding tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mandate regular updating of concepts and management. A European LeukemiaNet expert panel reviewed prior and new studies to update recommendations made in 2009. We recommend as initial treatment imatinib, nilotinib, or dasatinib. Response is assessed with standardized real quantitative polymerase chain reaction and/or cytogenetics at 3, 6, and 12 months. BCR-ABL1 transcript levels ≤10% at 3 months, 10% at 6 months and >1% from 12 months onward define failure, mandating a change in treatment. Similarly, partial cytogenetic response (PCyR) at 3 months and complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) from 6 months onward define optimal response, whereas no CyR (Philadelphia chromosome-positive [Ph+] >95%) at 3 months, less than PCyR at 6 months, and less than CCyR from 12 months onward define failure. Between optimal and failure, there is an intermediate warning zone requiring more frequent monitoring. Similar definitions are provided for response to second-line therapy. Specific recommendations are made for patients in the accelerated and blastic phases, and for allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Optimal responders should continue therapy indefinitely, with careful surveillance, or they can be enrolled in controlled studies of treatment discontinuation once a deeper molecular response is achieved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Final 5-Year Study Results of DASISION: The Dasatinib Versus Imatinib Study in Treatment-Naïve Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients Trial.

            We report the 5-year analysis from the phase III Dasatinib Versus Imatinib Study in Treatment-Naïve Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients (DASISION) trial, evaluating long-term efficacy and safety outcomes of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase (CP) treated with dasatinib or imatinib.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Long-term benefits and risks of frontline nilotinib vs imatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: 5-year update of the randomized ENESTnd trial

              In the phase 3 Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials–Newly Diagnosed Patients (ENESTnd) study, nilotinib resulted in earlier and higher response rates and a lower risk of progression to accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC) than imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP). Here, patients' long-term outcomes in ENESTnd are evaluated after a minimum follow-up of 5 years. By 5 years, more than half of all patients in each nilotinib arm (300 mg twice daily, 54% 400 mg twice daily, 52%) achieved a molecular response 4.5 (MR4.5; BCR-ABL⩽0.0032% on the International Scale) compared with 31% of patients in the imatinib arm. A benefit of nilotinib was observed across all Sokal risk groups. Overall, safety results remained consistent with those from previous reports. Numerically more cardiovascular events (CVEs) occurred in patients receiving nilotinib vs imatinib, and elevations in blood cholesterol and glucose levels were also more frequent with nilotinib. In contrast to the high mortality rate associated with CML progression, few deaths in any arm were associated with CVEs, infections or pulmonary diseases. These long-term results support the positive benefit-risk profile of frontline nilotinib 300 mg twice daily in patients with CML-CP.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Clin Oncol
                J. Clin. Oncol
                jco
                jco
                JCO
                Journal of Clinical Oncology
                American Society of Clinical Oncology
                0732-183X
                1527-7755
                20 January 2018
                1 November 2017
                1 November 2017
                : 36
                : 3
                : 231-237
                Affiliations
                [1]Jorge E. Cortes, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Carlo Gambacorti-Passerini, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy; Michael W. Deininger, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Michael J. Mauro, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Charles Chuah, Singapore General Hospital, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore, Singapore; Dong-Wook Kim, Seoul St Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea; Irina Dyagil, National Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Kiev; Nataliia Glushko, Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Clinical Hospital, Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine; Dragana Milojkovic, Imperial College London at Hammersmith Hospital London; Laurence Reilly and Allison Jeynes-Ellis, Avillion, London, United Kingdom; Philipp le Coutre, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin; Andreas Hochhaus, Klinik für Innere Medizin II, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena; Tim H. Brümmendorf, Universitätsklinikum RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany; Valentin Garcia-Gutierrez, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria, Madrid, Spain; Eric Leip, Pfizer, Cambridge, MA; Nathalie Bardy-Bouxin, Pfizer International Operation, Paris, France.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Jorge E. Cortes, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030; e-mail: jcortes@ 123456mdanderson.org .
                Article
                747162
                10.1200/JCO.2017.74.7162
                5966023
                29091516
                119de550-e132-4e5d-899f-02fc1626b894
                © 2017 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

                Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 5, Equations: 0, References: 21, Pages: 9
                Categories
                HEMA5, Chemotherapy
                ORIGINAL REPORTS
                Hematologic Malignancy
                Custom metadata
                v1

                Comments

                Comment on this article