4.7 Article

Early responses predict better outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia: results with four tyrosine kinase inhibitor modalities

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 121, Issue 24, Pages 4867-4874

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2013-03-490128

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. MD Anderson Cancer Center [CA016672]
  2. National Cancer Institute [P01 CA049639]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Early responses to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)-chronic phase (CP) are associated with improved outcome. We analyzed the impact of such a response on outcomes among patients treated with 4 TKI modalities as frontline therapy in CML-CP. A total of 483 patients who received 400 or 800 mg imatinib, nilotinib, or dasatinib were analyzed. The median follow-up was 72 mo. Landmark analysis at 3 mo by molecular response showed that the cumulative proportions of 3-y event-free survival (EFS) for 3-mo BCR-ABL levels was 95% for those with <= 1%, 98% for >1% to 10%, and 61% for those with >10% (P = .001). The corresponding values by cytogenetic responses were 97% if Ph+ = 0%, 89% if Ph+ = 1% to 35%, and 81% if Ph+ >35% (P = .001). Cytogenetic response at 3 mo significantly discriminated for 3-y overall survival (OS): 98%, 96%, and 92%, respectively (P = .01). In multivariate analysis, young patients, high Sokal index, and treatment with imatinib 400 significantly predicted for poor (>35%) cytogenetic response at 3 mo. Early responses are predictive for EFS and failure-free survival and to a lesser extent OS, regardless of the treatment modality, although therapies other than standard-dose imatinib result in higher rates of deep early responses. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as ID01-151 NCT00038649, ID01-015 NCT00048672, DM00-163 NCT00333840, ID02-534 NCT00050531, 2005-0422 NCT00254423, and 2005-0048 NCT00129740.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available