MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3095409250 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-136250

ENESTop 5-Year Update: Durability of Treatment-Free Remission Following Second-Line Nilotinib and Exploratory Analysis of Molecular Response Regain after Nilotinib Re-Initiation in Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

2020· article· en· W3095409250 sur OpenAlexaff
François‐Xavier Mahon, Nelma D Clementino, Mikhail Fominykh, Jeffrey H. Lipton, Anna Turkina, Beatriz Moiraghi, Franck E. Nicolini, Naoto Takahashi, Tomasz Sacha, Dong‐Wook Kim, Rafik Fellague-Chebra, Ranjan Tiwari, Catherine Bouard, Timothy P. Hughes

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNilotinibMedicineInternal medicineMyeloid leukemiaInterim analysisImatinib mesylateImatinibNeutropeniaSurgeryGastroenterologyClinical trialToxicity

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: The ENESTop study (NCT01698905) evaluates treatment-free remission (TFR) in patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) with sustained deep molecular response following second-line (2L) treatment with nilotinib (NIL). In the primary analysis, 57.9% of pts remained in TFR 48 weeks after stopping NIL and previous analysis at ≥3.7 years showed durability of TFR. The present analysis first assessed long-term TFR outcomes at ≥5 years and then a post-hoc analysis evaluated rates of regain of molecular response following NIL re-initiation in pts with loss of major molecular response (MMR) or confirmed loss of MR4.0 at a follow-up of 5 years. Methods: Eligible pts had received ≥3 years of treatment (including >4 weeks of imatinib followed by ≥2 years of NIL) and had achieved MR4.5 (BCR-ABL1IS ≤0.0032%) on NIL. Pts without confirmed loss of MR4.5 after 1 year of consolidation treatment (CONS) could attempt TFR. NIL was re-initiated upon loss of MMR (BCR-ABL1IS >0.1%) or confirmed loss of MR4.0 (BCR-ABL1IS >0.01% in 2 consecutive assessments). By data cut-off (29 Jan 2020) pts had completed ≥5 years of TFR, resumed NIL, or discontinued the study. Results: At the data cut-off, of the 126 pts who entered TFR, 52 remained in TFR, 59 had resumed NIL and 15 had discontinued the study. At 5 years, the TFR rate was 42.9% (54/126; 95% CI, 34.1-52.0). Compared with pts in TFR at the end of the 3.7-year follow-up, an additional 4 pts were not in TFR at the 5-year follow-up, none due to loss of response: 2 pts discontinued TFR due to pt/guardian decision, 1 pt had an ischemic stroke and died in the post-treatment follow-up phase, and 1 pt was lost to follow-up. The MR4.5 rate at 5 years after starting TFR was 37.3% (47/126, 95% CI: 28.9-46.4). 11 pts with MR4.5 at 5 years had a temporary loss of MR4.5 while 36/126 (28.6%) maintained stable MR4.5 for 5 years. The estimated treatment-free survival (TFS) rate at 5 years was 49.4% (95% CI: 40.3-57.9). Of the 59 pts who resumed NIL, 58 (98.3%) regained MMR. The only pt who did not regain MMR stopped retreatment at 20 weeks and withdrew from the study. 56 (94.9%) pts regained MR4.0 and 55 (93.2%) regained MR4.5 (Figure). The median time to regain MR4.5 was 2.9 months (range: 0.9-22.5). Baseline characteristics between pts who resumed NIL due to loss of MMR (n=34) or confirmed loss of MR4.0 (n=25)were similar; more pts with loss of MMR had a low Sokal relative risk score at diagnosis (44.1% vs 16.0%) and pts with loss of MMR had a shorter median time from achievement of MR4.5 until TFR entry (27.9 vs 40.1 months). In pts with confirmed loss of MR4.0, 25/25 (100.0%) and 24/25 (96.0%) regained MR4.0 and MR4.5 within the first 48 weeks of NIL re-initiation, respectively. In pts with loss of MMR, 33/34 (97.1%), 31/34 (91.2%) and 30/34 (88.2%) regained MMR, MR4.0 and MR4.5 within the first 48 weeks of NIL re-initiation, respectively. The median time to regain MR4.5 for pts who resumed NIL due to confirmed loss of MR4.0 or loss of MMR was 2.0 months (range: 0.9-4.6) and 3.6 months (range: 1.6-22.5), respectively. There were no cases of disease progression or death due to underlying CML. For pts remaining in TFR >3.7 years (n=58), the rates of all-grade adverse events (AEs) were 50.0% in the fifth 48 weeks of TFR compared with 55.2% in the fourth 48 weeks. The musculoskeletal pain AE rate was high during the first 48 weeks of TFR (53.4%) but by the fifth 48 weeks of TFR was lower (6.9%) than during CONS (10.3%). In pts who resumed NIL (n=59), the rate of all-grade AEs was higher (94.9%) than during CONS (77.9%, n=163). Overall all-grade AE rates were similar between pts re-initiating NIL due to loss of MMR (94.1%) or confirmed loss of MR4.0 (96.0%), with the most common AEs being hypertension (26.5% vs 32.0%), arthralgia (20.6% vs 8.0%), constipation (11.8% vs 20.0%) and hyperglycemia (26.5% vs 0%). Conclusions: These results illustrate the long-term (up to 5 years) durability and safety of TFR in pts with CML-CP following 2L NIL. The majority of pts requiring NIL re-treatment rapidly regained MMR, MR4.0 or MR4.5. The faster rate of regain in pts resuming NIL due to confirmed loss of MR4.0 likely reflects earlier intervention but could also suggest a slower tempo of relapse and possibly more favorable biology. Subgroup analysis should be interpreted with caution due to small base sizes. No new or unexpected safety signals were observed. Disclosures Mahon: ARIAD: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Clementino:EMS: Other: Financial support for congress. Fominykh:Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Lipton:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Turkina:Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Moiraghi:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Nicolini:Sun Pharma Ltd: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Takahashi:Pfizer Japan Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis Pharma KK: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Honoraria. Sacha:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Adamed: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kim:Sun Pharma.: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ILYANG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Fellague-Chebra:Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding. Tiwari:Novartis: Current Employment. Bouard:Novartis: Current Employment. Hughes:BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,036

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,237
Écart entre enseignants0,225 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207