Explore the vast range of titles available.

The therapeutic landscape of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has profoundly changed over the past 7 years. Most patients with chronic phase (CP) now have a normal life expectancy. Another goal is achieving a stable deep molecular response (DMR) and discontinuing medication for treatment-free remission (TFR). The European LeukemiaNet convened an expert panel to critically evaluate and update the evidence to achieve these goals since its previous recommendations. First-line treatment is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI; imatinib brand or generic, dasatinib, nilotinib, and bosutinib are available first-line). Generic imatinib is the cost-effective initial treatment in CP. Various contraindications and side-effects of all TKIs should be considered. Patient risk status at diagnosis should be assessed with the new EUTOS long-term survival (ELTS)-score. Monitoring of response should be done by quantitative polymerase chain reaction whenever possible. A change of treatment is recommended when intolerance cannot be ameliorated or when molecular milestones are not reached. Greater than 10% BCR-ABL1 at 3 months indicates treatment failure when confirmed. Allogeneic transplantation continues to be a therapeutic option particularly for advanced phase CML. TKI treatment should be withheld during pregnancy. Treatment discontinuation may be considered in patients with durable DMR with the goal of achieving TFR.

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.

In the ENESTnd study, with ≥10 years follow-up in patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase, nilotinib demonstrated higher cumulative molecular response rates, lower rates of disease progression and CML-related death, and increased eligibility for treatment-free remission (TFR). Cumulative 10-year rates of MMR and MR 4.5 were higher with nilotinib (300 mg twice daily [BID], 77.7% and 61.0%, respectively; 400 mg BID, 79.7% and 61.2%, respectively) than with imatinib (400 mg once daily [QD], 62.5% and 39.2%, respectively). Cumulative rates of TFR eligibility at 10 years were higher with nilotinib (300 mg BID, 48.6%; 400 mg BID, 47.3%) vs imatinib (29.7%). Estimated 10-year overall survival rates in nilotinib and imatinib arms were 87.6%, 90.3%, and 88.3%, respectively. Overall frequency of adverse events was similar with nilotinib and imatinib. By 10 years, higher cumulative rates of cardiovascular events were reported with nilotinib (300 mg BID, 16.5%; 400 mg BID, 23.5%) vs imatinib (3.6%), including in Framingham low-risk patients. Overall efficacy and safety results support the use of nilotinib 300 mg BID as frontline therapy for optimal long-term outcomes, especially in patients aiming for TFR. The benefit-risk profile in context of individual treatment goals should be carefully assessed.

Ponatinib has shown potent activity against chronic myeloid leukaemia that is resistant to available treatment, although it is associated with arterial occlusion. We investigated whether this activity and safety profile would result in superior outcomes compared with imatinib in previously untreated patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia. The Evaluation of Ponatinib versus Imatinib in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (EPIC) study was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of ponatinib, compared with imatinib, in newly diagnosed patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia. Patients from 106 centres in 21 countries were randomly assigned (1:1, with stratification by Sokal score at diagnosis) using an interactive voice and web response system to receive oral ponatinib (45 mg) or imatinib (400 mg) once daily until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other criteria for withdrawal were met. Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age, within 6 months of diagnosis, and Philadelphia chromosome-positive by cytogenetic assessment, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and had not previously been treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The primary endpoint was major molecular response at 12 months. Patients who remained on study and had molecular assessments at specified timepoints were studied at those timepoints. Safety analyses included all treated patients, as per study protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01650805. Between Aug 14, 2012, and Oct 9, 2013, 307 patients were randomly assigned to receive ponatinib (n=155) or imatinib (n=152). The trial was terminated early, on Oct 17, 2013, following concerns about vascular adverse events observed in patients given ponatinib in other trials. Trial termination limited assessment of the primary endpoint of major molecular response at 12 months, as only 13 patients in the imatinib group and ten patients in the ponatinib group could be assessed at this timepoint; the proportion of patients achieving a major molecular response at 12 months did not differ significantly between the two groups (eight [80%] of ten patients given ponatinib and five [38%] of 13 patients given imatinib; p=0·074). 11 (7%) of 154 patients given ponatinib and three (2%) of 152 patients given imatinib had arterial occlusive events (p=0·052); arterial occlusive events were designated serious in ten (6%) of 154 patients given ponatinib and in one (1%) of 152 patients given imatinib (p=0·010). The data monitoring committee criterion for risk assessment (significant difference in serious grade 3 or 4 ischaemic events between groups) was not met (five [3%] of 154 vs one [1%] of 152; p=0·21). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events observed in more than 5% of patients in the ponatinib group were increased lipase (22 [14%] of 154 vs three [2%] of 152 with imatinib), thrombocytopenia (19 [12%] of 154 vs ten [7%] of 152 with imatinib), rash (ten [6%] of 154 vs two [1%] of 152 with imatinib). In the imatinib group, grade 3 or 4 adverse events observed in more than 5% of patients were neutropenia (12 [8%] of 152 vs five [3%] of 154 with ponatinib) and thrombocytopenia (ten [7%] of 152 vs 19 [12%] of 154 with ponatinib). Serious adverse events that occurred in three or more patients given ponatinib were pancreatitis (n=5), atrial fibrillation (n=3), and thrombocytopenia (n=3). No serious adverse event occurred in three or more patients given imatinib. The efficacy of ponatinib treatment of newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia compared with imatinib could not be assessed due to trial termination, but preliminary data suggest there might be benefit, although with more arterial occlusive events than with imatinib at the doses studied. Because the EPIC trial was terminated early, efficacy of ponatinib in this setting remains to be established. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals.

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 (MR 4.5 ; 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.

In the face of competing first-line treatment options for CML, early prediction of prognosis on imatinib is desirable to assure favorable survival or otherwise consider the use of a second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). A total of 1303 newly diagnosed imatinib-treated patients (pts) were investigated to correlate molecular and cytogenetic response at 3 and 6 months with progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS). The persistence of BCR-ABL transcript levels >10% according to the international scale (BCR-ABL IS ) at 3 months separated a high-risk group (28% of pts; 5-year OS: 87%) from a group with >1–10% BCR-ABL IS (41% of pts; 5-year OS: 94%; P =0.012) and from a group with ⩽1% BCR-ABL IS (31% of pts; 5-year OS: 97%; P =0.004). Cytogenetics identified high-risk pts by >35% Philadelphia chromosome-positive metaphases (Ph+, 27% of pts; 5-year OS: 87%) compared with ⩽35% Ph+ (73% of pts; 5-year OS: 95%; P =0.036). At 6 months, >1% BCR-ABL IS (37% of pts; 5-year OS: 89%) was associated with inferior survival compared with ⩽1% (63% of pts; 5-year OS: 97%; P <0.001) and correspondingly >0% Ph+ (34% of pts; 5-year OS: 91%) compared with 0% Ph+ (66% of pts; 5-year OS: 97%; P =0.015). Treatment optimization is recommended for pts missing these landmarks.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have improved the survival of patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia. Many patients have deep molecular responses, a prerequisite for TKI therapy discontinuation. We aimed to define precise conditions for stopping treatment. In this prospective, non-randomised trial, we enrolled patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia at 61 European centres in 11 countries. Eligible patients had chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia, had received any TKI for at least 3 years (without treatment failure according to European LeukemiaNet [ELN] recommendations), and had a confirmed deep molecular response for at least 1 year. The primary endpoint was molecular relapse-free survival, defined by loss of major molecular response (MMR; >0·1% BCR-ABL1 on the International Scale) and assessed in all patients with at least one molecular result. Secondary endpoints were a prognostic analysis of factors affecting maintenance of MMR at 6 months in learning and validation samples and the cost impact of stopping TKI therapy. We considered loss of haematological response, progress to accelerated-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia, or blast crisis as serious adverse events. This study presents the results of the prespecified interim analysis, which was done after the 6-month molecular relapse-free survival status was known for 200 patients. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01596114. Between May 30, 2012, and Dec 3, 2014, we assessed 868 patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia for eligibility, of whom 758 were enrolled. Median follow-up of the 755 patients evaluable for molecular response was 27 months (IQR 21–34). Molecular relapse-free survival for these patients was 61% (95% CI 57–64) at 6 months and 50% (46–54) at 24 months. Of these 755 patients, 371 (49%) lost MMR after TKI discontinuation, four (1%) died while in MMR for reasons unrelated to chronic myeloid leukaemia (myocardial infarction, lung cancer, renal cancer, and heart failure), and 13 (2%) restarted TKI therapy while in MMR. A further six (1%) patients died in chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia after loss of MMR and re-initiation of TKI therapy for reasons unrelated to chronic myeloid leukaemia, and two (<1%) patients lost MMR despite restarting TKI therapy. In the prognostic analysis in 405 patients who received imatinib as first-line treatment (learning sample), longer treatment duration (odds ratio [OR] per year 1·14 [95% CI 1·05–1·23]; p=0·0010) and longer deep molecular response durations (1·13 [1·04–1·23]; p=0·0032) were associated with increasing probability of MMR maintenance at 6 months. The OR for deep molecular response duration was replicated in the validation sample consisting of 171 patients treated with any TKI as first-line treatment, although the association was not significant (1·13 [0·98–1·29]; p=0·08). TKI discontinuation was associated with substantial cost savings (an estimated €22 million). No serious adverse events were reported. Patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia who have achieved deep molecular responses have good molecular relapse-free survival. Such patients should be considered for TKI discontinuation, particularly those who have been in deep molecular response for a long time. Stopping treatment could spare patients from treatment-induced side-effects and reduce health expenditure. ELN Foundation and France National Cancer Institute.

Ponatinib was developed to overcome resistance to the tyrosine kinase inhibitors used to treat leukemias that are positive for the Philadelphia chromosome. In a phase 1 study, ponatinib was associated with dramatic antitumor effects, with pancreatitis as a dose-limiting toxicity. The fusion protein product of the Philadelphia chromosome (Ph), BCR-ABL, is a constitutively active tyrosine kinase that gives rise to chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and a subset of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph-positive ALL). 1 , 2 Three tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting the BCR-ABL protein (imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib) have been approved for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML. 3 – 5 Resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors is the major reason for the failure of therapy in patients with Ph-positive disease. Primary or secondary resistance to imatinib occurs in approximately 20 to 30% of patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML. 3 , 6 Second-generation . . .

In chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia (CP-CML), residual BCR-ABL1+ leukaemia stem cells are responsible for disease persistence despite TKI. Based on in vitro data, CHOICES (CHlorOquine and Imatinib Combination to Eliminate Stem cells) was an international, randomised phase II trial designed to study the safety and efficacy of imatinib (IM) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) compared with IM alone in CP-CML patients in major cytogenetic remission with residual disease detectable by qPCR. Sixty-two patients were randomly assigned to either arm. Treatment ‘successes’ was the primary end point, defined as ≥0.5 log reduction in 12-month qPCR level from trial entry. Selected secondary study end points were 24-month treatment ‘successes’, molecular response and progression at 12 and 24 months, comparison of IM levels, and achievement of blood HCQ levels >2000 ng/ml. At 12 months, there was no difference in ‘success’ rate (p = 0.58); MMR was achieved in 80% (IM) vs 92% (IM/HCQ) (p = 0.21). At 24 months, the ‘success’ rate was 20.8% higher with IM/HCQ (p = 0.059). No patients progressed. Seventeen serious adverse events, including four serious adverse reactions, were reported; diarrhoea occurred more frequently with combination. IM/HCQ is tolerable in CP-CML, with modest improvement in qPCR levels at 12 and 24 months, suggesting autophagy inhibition maybe of clinical value in CP-CML.

PR1, an HLA-A2-restricted peptide derived from both proteinase 3 and neutrophil elastase, is recognized on myeloid leukemia cells by cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) that preferentially kill leukemia and contribute to cytogenetic remission. To evaluate safety, immunogenicity and clinical activity of PR1 vaccination, a phase I/II trial was conducted. Sixty-six HLA-A2+ patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML: 42), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML: 13) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS: 11) received three to six PR1 peptide vaccinations, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks at dose levels of 0.25, 0.5 or 1.0 mg. Patients were randomized to the three dose levels after establishing the safety of the highest dose level. Primary end points were safety and immune response, assessed by doubling of PR1/HLA-A2 tetramer-specific CTL, and the secondary end point was clinical response. Immune responses were noted in 35 of 66 (53%) patients. Of the 53 evaluable patients with active disease, 12 (24%) had objective clinical responses (complete: 8; partial: 1 and hematological improvement: 3). PR1-specific immune response was seen in 9 of 25 clinical responders versus 3 of 28 clinical non-responders ( P =0.03). In conclusion, PR1 peptide vaccine induces specific immunity that correlates with clinical responses, including molecular remission, in AML, CML and MDS patients.