7/24/2019 5MJCASH2014 2 Branford
1/11
Any BCR-ABL Reduction Below10% at 6 Months of TherapySinificantly !"pro#es $utco"efor CML atients with a oor
Response at & Months
Branford S et al'
Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 254.
7/24/2019 5MJCASH2014 2 Branford
2/11
Bac(round
The molecular response at 3 months after commencementof tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TK! therapy for patients "ith#$% has pro&nostic si&nificance.
Analyses by 'eelakantan et al su&&est that aitional
measurement of )#*+A)%1 transcript le,els at - monthsas little pro&nostic ,alue to the 3+month result (Blood2013;1212/3!.
o"e,er another recent stuy base on cyto&eneticresponse conclue that for patients "ith poor response at
3 months assessin& the response at - months maypro,ie a better preictor of lon&+term outcome(Haematologica2013;1--!.
Study o)*ecti#e+ To e,aluate the pro&nostic importanceof assessin& both the 3+ an -+month molecular response
for patients "ith chronic+phase #$% (#$%+#!.)ranfor et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 254.
7/24/2019 5MJCASH2014 2 Branford
3/11
Study ,esin
The stuy inclue patients "ith #$%+# enrolle inconsecuti,e clinical trials of first+line imatinib from 2000 to2011 (n 6 52!.
7 $any patients "ere treate before alternati,e TKs "erea,ailable but s"itche therapy.8
The utility of )#*+A)% as a preictor of eath (o,erallsur,i,al! pro&ression (A9)# pro&ression+free sur,i,al!treatment failure (failure+free sur,i,al! an ma:or molecularresponse ($$*! "as assesse.
atients "ere i,ie accorin& to the 2013 uropean
%eukemia'et (%'! efinitions of 3+ an -+month molecularresponse
7 3 mo optimal 10=
)ranfor et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 254.
8tuy "as not po"ere to assess the effect of treatment inter,ention
7/24/2019 5MJCASH2014 2 Branford
4/11
$utco"es at .ears for atients inthe $pti"al /10% #ersus 2arnin
/310% Cateory at & Months
)ranfor et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 254.
$utco"e at y
$pti"al
/n 4 06
2arnin
/n 4 100 p-#alue
@,erall sur,i,al /= = 0.0003
ro&ression+free sur,i,al = -= ?0.0001
ailure+free sur,i,al 3= 4-= ?0.0001
$$* = 42= ?0.0001
7/24/2019 5MJCASH2014 2 Branford
5/11
Sur#i#al of atients in the&-Month 2arnin Cateory 5rouped
)y Cateory at 6 Months
Bith permission from )ranfor et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 254.
$#erall Sur#i#al /n 4 7
@ptimal 100=Barnin& 100=
ailure /1=
.ears after i"atini) start
0 1 2 3 4
ro)a)ility%
0
20
40
-0
0
100
P6 0.001
ailure /2=
.ears after i"atini) start
0 1 2 3 4
ro)a)ility%
0
20
40
-0
0
100
P6 0.02
@ptimal 100=Barnin& 4=
roression-8ree Sur#i#al /n 4 7
7/24/2019 5MJCASH2014 2 Branford
6/11
MMR for atients in the &-Month2arnin Cateory 5rouped )y Cateory
at 6 Months
atients in the "arnin& cate&ory at 3 months "ho ha,e )#*+A)%1 ?10= at - monthsha,e impro,e outcomes
'o si&nificant ifference in any outcome assessment after - months bet"een those"ho "ere in the optimal cate&ory at 3 months an - months ,ersus those in the"arnin& cate&ory at 3 months "ho mo,e to the optimal cate&ory at - months
Bith permission from )ranfor et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 254.
P6 0.001
ailure 3=
.ears after i"atini) start
0 1 2 3 4Cu"ulati#e
incidence%
0
20
40
-0
0
100
P? 0.0001
Barnin& -5=
@ptimal =
7/24/2019 5MJCASH2014 2 Branford
7/11
3
10
0 months
atients at 9ih $noinRis( of oor Response
#han&e of )#*+A)%1 le,el from baseline to 3 months "as important foroutcome
Bith permission from )ranfor et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 254.
tanarise)aseline 100
BCR-ABL1
% !S
n 4 100
54=no failure
42=$$*
2arnin
7/24/2019 5MJCASH2014 2 Branford
8/11
:se of 9al#in Ti"e to redict$utco"e for atients at 9ih $noin
Ris( of oor Response
Bith permission from )ranfor et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 254.
Bhen )#*+A)%1 "as measure as a continuous co,ariate patients "ith the same,alue at 3 months ha better outcomes if their baseline ,alue "as hi&her.
&
10
0 "onths
n 4 ;7al,in& Time0 ays
meian 32 ays(ran&e 1-+0!
*ate of reuction "asmeasure by the numberof ays o,er "hich
)#*+A)%1 hal,e9al#in Ti"e
7/24/2019 5MJCASH2014 2 Branford
9/11
$utco"es for atients in the2arnin Cateory at & Months )y
9al#in Ti"e Responses
)ranfor et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 254.
$utco"e at y
$#erall
/n 4 100
9al#in ti"e response
70 d
/n 4 ;7
370 d
/n 4 17 p-#alue
@,erall sur,i,al = 3= -= 0.000
ro&ression+free
sur,i,al-= 0= -= 0.01/
ailure+free sur,i,al 4-= 5-= /= ?0.0001
$$* 42= 53= 5= 0.01/
The hal,in& time at 3 months may also be preicti,e of o,erall anpro&ression+free sur,i,al for the 35 patients "ho subseCuently met the %'failure criteria at - months.
7/24/2019 5MJCASH2014 2 Branford
10/11
Author Conclusions
)ranfor et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 254.
)#*+A)%1 >10= at 3 months is a poor risk cate&ory.
'ot all patients "ith a )#*+A)%1 ,alue >10= at 3
months ha,e a hi&h on&oin& risk of treatment failure.
7 Any reuction belo" 10= by - months may impro,e
outcome.
7 The rate of reuction o,er the first 3 months is an
important factor for outcome an coul be consiere
"hen makin& therapeutic ecisions.
7/24/2019 5MJCASH2014 2 Branford
11/11
!n#estiator Co""entary+ BCR-ABL Le#els 10= at 3 months.
$y recommenation is not to chan&e treatment for any patient at 3months but to ensure that the patients are monitore at - months. "oul consier chan&in& the treatment for those "ho continue torespon poorly.
Bith imatinib about a thir of patients onDt achie,e a &oo response at
3 months an about half of these patients "ill continue to fare poorly at- months. o"e,er "ith asatinib or nilotinib only 10= to 15= ofpatients "ill not ha,e a &oo response at 3 months an half of those"ill continue to respon poorly at - months. That is a rationale for usin&asatinib or nilotinib as up+front therapy.
Interview with Jorge E Cortes, MD, January 24, 2014
Top Related