The Canadian Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Discontinuation Trial with Imatinib Discontinuation As a First Attempt and with Dasatinib Discontinuation As a Second Attempt of Treatment-Free Remission: Results of 4 Years of Follow-up
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The Canadian trial entitled "Treatment Free Remission Accomplished By Dasatinib" (BMS CA180543, NCT#02268370) is ongoing since Jan 2015, and has completed accrual of 131 patients. The study was designed to determine if using dasatinib (DA) can lead to a successful treatment-free remission (TFR) after failing a first attempt of TKI discontinuation following imatinib (IM) treatment. The preliminary results (ASH 2018) indicate: 1) The 6-month molecular relapse-free survival (mRFS) rate is estimated as 58.0%; 2) DA re-treatment is feasible and safe, with achievement of excellent rates of MMR and MR4; 3) The estimated TFR2 rate after DA discontinuation was 21.5±8.5% at 6 months [7.9-39.5%]). Herein, we report the 4-year follow-up results with updated TFR2 after second TFR attempt following DA discontinuation. Methods and materials: This prospective clinical trial has 3 phases: 1) IM discontinuation phase, 2) DA rechallenge phase, 3) DA discontinuation phase. Molecular relapse is defined as an increase in BCR-ABL transcript level above MR4.0 on 2 consecutive occasions, or an increase in BCR-ABL transcript level above MR3.0 on a single occasion. 100mg daily of DA is started if molecular relapse is confirmed and is discontinued 12 months after achieving MR4 following a 2nd TFR attempt. Results: As of Jun 25, 2019, 58 (44.3%) of 131 enrolled patients experienced molecular relapse after IM discontinuation with a mRFS rate of 59.1% [50.1-67.0%] and 56.8% [47.8-64.8%] at 6 and 12 months, respectively. TFR using loss of MMR as an event was 69.8% at 6/12 months. Of the 58 patients who lost response, 53 patients (91.4%) lost response within 6 months after IM discontinuation: 7 (10.1%) lost response within 2 months, 20 (34.5%) within 3 months, 14 (24.1%) within 4 months, 9 (15.5%) within 5 months, and 3 (5.2%) within 5-6 months. Beyond 6 months, 5 patients (15.5%) lost response within 7, 8, 10, 20, 21 months, respectively. Only two patients experienced late relapse occuring 15 months after IM discontinuation. 54 patients started DA, of whom 49 patients (90.7%) achieved MR4.5 on DA. Median time to MMR, MR4 and MR4.5 was 0.94, 1.95, and 2.48, respectively. The incidence of MMR, MR4 and MR4.5 at 3 months was 99.0% (86.3-99.0%), 91.5% (78.4-96.7%), and 76.6% (60.9-86.0%), respectively. 32/49 patients receiving DA attained MR4.5, and discontinued DA for a 2nd TFR attempt (TFR2). 25/32 (78.1%) of these patients lost molecular response at a median of 3.67 months after DA discontinuation. The estimated TFR2 after DA discontinuation was 18.5% at 6 months [6.8-34.7%], TFR2 using loss of MMR as a definition of molecular relapse was 20.4% [7.6-37.4%], while TFR2 using two consecutive losses of MR4 was 25.4% [9.4%-45.2%]. Two patients continued to attain deep molecular response at MR4.2 and undetectable level (equivalent to MR5.5) beyond 18 months after DA discontinuation. At last follow-up of Jun 25, 2019, 30 patients are still being monitored on trial on IM discontinuation (n=20), DA rechallenge (n=4) or DA discontinuation phases (n=6). With a median follow-up duration of 36 months, risk factor analyses were performed using Cox's proportional hazard regression model suggesting a strong correlation of mRFS with total duration of IM treatment prior to IM discontinuation (p<0.001, HR 0.864), MR4 duration (p<0.001, HR 0.867), but not with time to achieve MR4 (p=0.216). When patients attained MR4 or deeper for longer than 10.59 years, their mRFS was 91.8% [71.1-97.9%] at 12 months. The group who attained MR4 duration of 6.93 years or longer had 40.3% reduced risk of mRFS (HR 0.597 [0.449-0.794], p<0.001] compared to those with MR4 duration less than 6.93 years. The group who attained 10.59 years of MR4 duration or longer had a 65.5% reduced risk of mRFS (HR 0.345 [0.171-0.699], p=0.003] compared to those with MR4 duration less than 10.59 years. Conclusion: The 4-year follow-up results suggests that DA rechallenge after failing a first IM discontinuation attempt for TFR was safe, feasible and well tolerated. It was effective in most cases rapidly regained at least MR4. Based on the two cases who successfully discontinued DA more than 18 months after DA consolidation following achievement of deep molecular response, second generation TKI therapy after imatinib discontinuation failure is a feasible option. Further follow-up is strongly warranted in order to reach a clear conclusion on this issue. Disclosures Busque: ExCellThera: Patents & Royalties; Paladin: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Savoie:Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Keating:Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hoffman La Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Delage:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Liew:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Leber:Astellas: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».